0
   

Obama is eloquent ... well sort of.

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:26 am
Re: Obama is eloquent ... well sort of.
Ticomaya wrote:
jasonrest wrote:
and who would you place in his stead?


Ron Paul ... FTW!!!
Laughing
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:38 am
ABC NEWS:
"If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"


Obama:
"No, because keep in mind that question, you wouldn't ... but keep in mind that kind of hypothetical
is very difficult to know hindsight is 20-20 ... later ... but I think that what I'm absolutely convinced
of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration
at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072208/content/01125115.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:47 am
Obama is asked hundreds of questions a week, but if he fails to be completely eloquent on a single one, you are all over him. McCain flubs just about every question sent his way including ones on key issues like the foreign policy where he is supposed to be knowledgable and you don't have any issues. Clearly the blind trust is not coming from the Obama side of the fence.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:49 am
engineer wrote:
Obama is asked hundreds of questions a week, but if he fails to be completely eloquent on a single one, you are all over him. McCain flubs just about every question sent his way including ones on key issues like the foreign policy where he is supposed to be knowledgable and you don't have any issues. Clearly the blind trust is not coming from the Obama side of the fence.


But Obama's "strong suit" is that he is eloquent and can supposedly answer any question asked of him.
Also, according to his devotee's, he never misspeaks or makes mistakes when speaking.

So tell me, whatever happened to his relative that fought in the Soviet army during WW2?
Or, was that simply a reporters error?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:52 am
mysteryman wrote:
engineer wrote:
Obama is asked hundreds of questions a week, but if he fails to be completely eloquent on a single one, you are all over him. McCain flubs just about every question sent his way including ones on key issues like the foreign policy where he is supposed to be knowledgable and you don't have any issues. Clearly the blind trust is not coming from the Obama side of the fence.


But Obama's "strong suit" is that he is eloquent and can supposedly answer any question asked of him.
Also, according to his devotee's, he never misspeaks or makes mistakes when speaking.
Please source any Obama devotee making such an idiotic claim. Or admit this idiocy is yours alone.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:01 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
engineer wrote:
Obama is asked hundreds of questions a week, but if he fails to be completely eloquent on a single one, you are all over him. McCain flubs just about every question sent his way including ones on key issues like the foreign policy where he is supposed to be knowledgable and you don't have any issues. Clearly the blind trust is not coming from the Obama side of the fence.


But Obama's "strong suit" is that he is eloquent and can supposedly answer any question asked of him.
Also, according to his devotee's, he never misspeaks or makes mistakes when speaking.
Please source any Obama devotee making such an idiotic claim. Or admit this idiocy is yours alone.

Beat me to the punch. I will say Obama's strong suit is his speach making, but I don't recall anyone saying he was perfect off the cuff. As to his relative who fought in WWII, he confessed he got the wrong concentration camp. What's the big deal there? Compared to McCain not knowing Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore? Or that Iraq doesn't border Pakistan? Or that the "Sunni Awakening" occured before the surge? These are real mistakes, not things you have to twist and turn. And you have only concerns about Obama?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:02 am
NObama
.


See the chosen one with your own eyes and bask in his words.



YouTube Video



What an idiot!
.http://www.athenswater.com/images/NOBAMA.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:12 am
For all those criticizing Obama on the 'failure to answer tough questions' bullshit:

Quote:

McCain cancels avail

Despite the press crowd around Obama, McCain's avail today was the one with more promise to make news:

He hasn't explained what he meant by juggling the timeline on the surge and Awakening (though his staff did the best salvage job possible); whether he meant that Obama was deliberately selling out the country; whether he shares his campaign's grievance with the press; or what he thinks of his staff's genocide-themed attack.

And now he's canceled the avail.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/McCain_cancels_avail.html?showall

McCain would rather cancel press appearances then explain himself, because he has no real defense for his comments.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:18 am
Innerestin'.

Seriously, the McCain campaign seems panicky this week.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:22 am
sozobe wrote:
Innerestin'.

Seriously, the McCain campaign seems panicky this week.


No, just the sheep who follow both Obama and McCain talkin' trash.

When will Obama agree to debate McCain. I know McCain made the offer.

John McCain on Wednesday proposed a series of debates and town hall forums with Barack Obama. These events would be in addition to the three presidential debates sanctioned by the Presidential Debate Commission.

Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Baton Rouge, La., McCain said the two major party presidential candidates should appear together so that Americans can get a good look at the differences in their policies.

"Leaders don't hide from history, they make history," McCain said. "I hope that Senator Obama will accept my invitation."

McCain later told reporters that he thinks Americans want "a new kind of discussion."

"I think they want a real chance to express their hopes and dreams and aspirations for the future and I think they'd like to hear directly from the candidates," he said.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded that he finds the idea of joint town halls "appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country."

However, Plouffe said the Obama camp would "recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas."

He said the campaign will begin addressing the idea in the coming days and discuss accordingly with the McCain team.

McCain has previously suggested the idea of Lincoln-Douglas-style travel together. On Wednesday, he sent a letter to Obama in which he proposed 10 town halls, one a week beginning next week and lasting until the Democratic convention.

He suggested the town halls could last 60-90 minutes in length, have 200 to 400 audience members selected by an independent polling agency, would limited moderation, allow blind questions from the audience and equal time for response.

He also proposed that he and Obama fly together to the first event, which could be held in New York City's Federal Hall, where George Washington took his first oath of office.

"In 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater and President John F. Kennedy agreed to make presidential campaign history by flying together from town to town and debating each other face-to-face on the same stage. In Goldwater's words, those debates 'would have done the country a lot of good.' Unfortunately, with President Kennedy's untimely death, Americans lost the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election," McCain wrote.

"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections. It is in the spirit of President Kennedy's and Senator Goldwater's agreement, in the spirit of the politics of change, and to do our country good, that I invite you to join me in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans," the letter continues.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-join-in-series-of-town-hall-meetings/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:22 am
sozobe wrote:
Innerestin'.

Seriously, the McCain campaign seems panicky this week.


Yup, well I think that Obama's stealing of the initiative on the Iraq issue really threw them for a loop. That and a few other factors have shown them that they are really far behind in this election and if they don't go heavily negative, they are toasty.

I think several more of his 'advisers' will be off the campaign due to their scandal links before the election as well...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:01 pm
The undeniable truth is that Obama is indeed an unusually gifted communicator; eloquent, facile, and able to connect readily with large numbers of people. Moreover he has fairly accurately identified and emphasized the key concerns of most Americans. It is also true that, to a very pronounced degree, he advocates precisely the positions of the key issue groups that dominate the Democrat party - the education establishment; labor unions; environmenatlists; and the secular/liberal social engineers who favor government mandated programs for health care, wealth transfers and the like. In short he is the most gifted and promising candidate of the Democrat establishment to come down the pike in the past two generations, far superior in his appeal to his predecessors such as McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale and the others.

Like nearly all politicians, he tailors his stated positions and alters his approach to suit the audience and the moment. Having in effect won the Democrat nomination, he now adopts flag lapel pins; begins to reassure voters that he won't precipitously pull out of Iraq, notwithstanding his previous unqualified opposition to everything about the war; etc,etc. I don't think that these things are particularly significant - all politicians do them to a similar extent, and in a Democracy it is certainly no fault for a leader to stay tuned to the wishes of the electorate. "Flip flopping" is NOT the grevious sin that overwrought zealots often make it out to be.

Obama's occasional muddled responses to specific questions are hardly different from those of his opponent , McCain. Everyone supposes that he/she can accurately forecast the specific applications of a candidate's rhetoric in a hypothetical situation, and are often alarmed when the result is different from what they assumed, or when the candidate is caught off guard by some hypothetical detail. The media, of course, looks for such things because they are "news". In Obama's case the effect is magnified by the inevitable contrast with his smooth eloquence when he is dealing with more abstract ideas. What is really important in all of this is the approach the candidate is likely to take in the future to issues and challenges not yet forseen by either him, or his critics or supporters.

The real reasons to oppose Obama (for those who choose to do so) involve the policies advocated by the organized establishment of the Democrat party, which he so closely supports; the likelihood that he will, in any event, be unable to moderate them with a Democrat Congress; and his lack of experience and the associated possibility that his political support & prowess may prove to be ephemeral.

For example, Obama is clearly correct in noting that we need a broad-based and comprehensive approach to the problem of energy independence; the enormous transfers of wealth our dependence on foreign petroleum entails; and the potential environmental effects of the extention of our carbon-based energy sourcing to the exploding economies of China, India and South Asia. However, he is dead wrong in completely ignoring (indeed opposing) the benefits of nuclear power and exploiting our best petroleum reserves in meeting these challenges. In short, he fairly clearly understands the challenge before us, but he remains captive to the fixed prejudices of the organized single issue groups of the Democrat party. One could outline a similar story with respect to other issues, ranging from education, to tax policy, trade, and foreign policy. That is the reason why I will vote against him.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:04 pm
"we need a broad-based and comprehensive approach to the problem of energy independence;"

Politicians have been saying htis for 30 years and this govt has done NOTHING.

Why am I to believe OBAMA is the chosen one to get it done? Based upon what past experience can I feel confident in this young man?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:04 pm
If only Obama had something, anything important to say ...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:05 pm
Is he really actively opposed to nukes?

Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

But he said, "I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea."


Seems he's in the middle on this issue, which isn't bad for a Dem.

That was July 20th of this year.

Cycloptichron
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:05 pm
btw, that was an excellent post George.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is he really actively opposed to nukes?

Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

But he said, "I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea."


Seems he's in the middle on this issue, which isn't bad for a Dem.

That was July 20th of this year.

Cycloptichron
Yes. He is dead wrong on Nuclear Power... as is and has been the Democratic Party at large for far too long already. You would think they'd be able to take solace in following the French's lead. (The French rock in this department, for those who don't know).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:12 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is he really actively opposed to nukes?

Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

But he said, "I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea."


Seems he's in the middle on this issue, which isn't bad for a Dem.

That was July 20th of this year.

Cycloptichorn
Yes. He is dead wrong on Nuclear Power... as is and has been the Democratic Party at large for far too long already. You would think they'd be able to take solace in following the French's lead. (The French rock in this department, for those who don't know).


Well, I am a pro-nuke Dem, so I agree with ya. But I haven't seen Obama be actively against Nukes as some have suggested. In fact, he took hits in the primary for being too involved with Excelon...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:13 pm
woiyo wrote:
"we need a broad-based and comprehensive approach to the problem of energy independence;"

Politicians have been saying htis for 30 years and this govt has done NOTHING.

Why am I to believe OBAMA is the chosen one to get it done? Based upon what past experience can I feel confident in this young man?


You are dead wrong in asserting the current administration has done nothing. Like their Democrat predecessors during the 1990s, they failed to tackle the issue in its full extent. However, unlike them, the Bush Administration has quietly done a great deal to restore and renew the viability of the nuclear power infrastructure that now produces 21% of the electrical power consumed in the country with only about 11% of the installed generation capacity. The NRC has quietly enforced enormous improvements in the speed and efficiency of its enforcement & oversight activities and brought about huge improvements in the safety and on-line efficiency of the 99 operating plants in the country. In addition they have approved new standardized designs for pressurized water and boiling water reactors; significantly streamlined the licensing process for new plants, and, in the process, brought the industry back to life. Six licenses for new plants have been issued; the licenses for existing plants extended; and on site spent fuel storage facilites improved, expanded and licensed. All of this was accomplished in the face of active opposition by Democrats, who would have preferred to see this, the most efficient and environmentally benign source of electrical energy, collapse entirely. Most notable was the implaccable oposition of Nancy Pelosi and Larry Reid to the long overdue opening of the spent fuel storage facvility at yucca Mountain - truly stupid pandering to the prejudices of an outspoken but deluded minoirty and contrary to everyone's best interests.

The Bush Administration pushed through waivers of the Clean Air Act that enabled owners of old coal-fired power plants to invest in needed plant upgrades that lowered their fuel consumption and thereby reduced pollution emissions, but which were made previously economically infeasible by the outrageous requirement in the Clean Air Act that ANY plant modification must instantly bring the plant into compliance with emission limitations that are simply unattainable.

In short, while the Bush Administration hasn't done enough in this area, the Democrats have done nothing but oppose needed progress. Worse, Obama promises to continue this small-minded approach - in spite of the elevated tone of his rhetoric on the abstract elements of the issue.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is he really actively opposed to nukes?

Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

But he said, "I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea."


Seems he's in the middle on this issue, which isn't bad for a Dem.

That was July 20th of this year.

Cycloptichron


Well, I agree it could be worse. However, I don't consider it particularly insightful of him in acknowledging that nuclear power doesn't involve the emission of greenhouse gases (perhaps he will also announce that the sun will rise tomorrow). As to the proposition that "we should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse", I am amazed at his apparent ignorance of the salient facts. We have been deeply involved in such research for several decades and reasonably good solutions have already been found and even built -- the repository at Yucca Mountain is the prominent example. Pity he can't find the energy to oppose his party's position on opening it after the expenditure of tens of billions of public funds in its design, construction and legal defense in the face of the litigious actions of zealous opponents.

Nuclear power is obviously not the panacea. Neither are wind or solar. In his elevated rhetoric Obama has correctly emphasized that there is no panacea, and that a complex, but comprehensive array of actions will be required to solve the problem. It is merely unfortunate that he lacks the political courage and will to apply his wise governing principle in this critical area to some of its most important and obvious applications.

Thanks for the acknowledgement above. I'm really not the crank you sometimes suggest. Similarly, some of my pointed criticisms of some of your arguments are based, not on the contempt you suggest, but rather on the belief that you have the ability to do better. Many folks here are not worth the effort.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 07:35:27