fmccap Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What if Mitt used a teleprompter just like Obama? Would all the people who bashed and made fun of Obama do it to Mitt also? I think there will be some excuses and spin from it. Funny thing is they said he will be using one from now on! The clown can't even speak and people want him to be POTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) What if Mitt used a teleprompter just like Obama? Would all the people who bashed and made fun of Obama do it to Mitt also? I think there will be some excuses and spin from it. Funny thing is they said he will be using one from now on! The clown can't even speak and people want him to be POTUS. ? Edited January 11, 2012 by napfirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 ? about what. The right made fun of and made jokes about Obama always using a teleprompter. Now that Mitt started using one last night and his campaign said he will use one from now on I would like to know what these same people are going to say about Mitt now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 ? about what. The right made fun of and made jokes about Obama always using a teleprompter. Now that Mitt started using one last night and his campaign said he will use one from now on I would like to know what these same people are going to say about Mitt now. I am sure they will treat Willard the same way. NOT! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 ? about what. The right made fun of and made jokes about Obama always using a teleprompter. Now that Mitt started using one last night and his campaign said he will use one from now on I would like to know what these same people are going to say about Mitt now. And this is important why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 And this is important why? I never said it was important. I'm just wondering if those people are going to treat it the same way since it's there "boy" doing it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) As far as I'm concerned Obama's performance in the debates made mincemeat of the whole teleprompter issue before it even became a wannabe issue. Let Romney or whoever use whatever works for them. Thinking on their feet at debate time (or on the job) is a whole 'nother issue. [edit in: but I do appreciate your calling out the potential and no doubt yet to ensue hypocrisy.] Edited January 12, 2012 by retro-man 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 ? about what. The right made fun of and made jokes about Obama always using a teleprompter. Now that Mitt started using one last night and his campaign said he will use one from now on I would like to know what these same people are going to say about Mitt now. Haven't heard the fawning masses exalt him as a earth shaking orator. The remarkable point was Obama's atrocious ad lib abilities juxtaposed against the mesmerizing delivery when he had his crutch. Mitt....not so much. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It's that special time of the year when we have to endure these endless lamentations about the 2 party system and how it has fail us.......the good part ....after Nov, they'll disappear until Jan. 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It's that special time of the year when we have to endure these endless lamentations about the 2 party system and how it has fail us.......the good part ....after Nov, they'll disappear until Jan. 2016 But the effects will be felt for a lifetime! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Haven't heard the fawning masses exalt him as a earth shaking orator. The remarkable point was Obama's atrocious ad lib abilities juxtaposed against the mesmerizing delivery when he had his crutch. Mitt....not so much. For Obama I would love to stick the weather forecast on his teleprompter. I bet he would read it and never notice the content. The prompter helps give that fluid like delivery but its not a substitute for quick thought and delivery. Obama off script / prompter is actually funny to watch & listen to. Romney likely does better non-scripted and the upcoming debates might be fun to watch. Bush was among the worst speaking presidents in my lifetime. That's a sharp contrast to the car salesman like delivery from Obama & prompter. Not an Obama fan and I dislike car salesmen too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 For Obama I would love to stick the weather forecast on his teleprompter. I bet he would read it and never notice the content. The prompter helps give that fluid like delivery but its not a substitute for quick thought and delivery. Obama off script / prompter is actually funny to watch & listen to. Romney likely does better non-scripted and the upcoming debates might be fun to watch. Bush was among the worst speaking presidents in my lifetime. That's a sharp contrast to the car salesman like delivery from Obama & prompter. Not an Obama fan and I dislike car salesmen too. Political affiliations aside, Joe Biden has to rank among the worst public speakers of all time. It's painful to listen to him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You guys seem to miss the point that Obama creamed his opponents in the debates - both primary and general - without a teleprompter. Or perhaps it's just that his policy positions were so much better. Either way, the reality that he won the election without the teleprompter (which only works for prepared, scripted speeches - not for the cut and thrust of debate) seems to have a hard time sinking through the FOX-implanted teleprompter meme. Say anything enough times, regardless all evidence to the contrary, and a certain number of people are going to adopt it as fact I guess. You go on believing that he'd be helpless without it - regardless what millions witnessed with their own eyes - if it makes you feel better. I'm just pointing out the complete disconnect with reality in the teleprompter criticism. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You guys seem to miss the point that Obama creamed his opponents in the debates - both primary and general - without a teleprompter. Or perhaps it's just that his policy positions were so much better. Either way, the reality that he won the election without the teleprompter (which only works for prepared, scripted speeches - not for the cut and thrust of debate) seems to have a hard time sinking through the FOX-implanted teleprompter meme. Say anything enough times, regardless all evidence to the contrary, and a certain number of people are going to adopt it as fact I guess. You go on believing that he'd be helpless without it - regardless what millions witnessed with their own eyes - if it makes you feel better. I'm just pointing out the complete disconnect with reality in the teleprompter criticism. Sorry but listen to some YouTube video clips of Obama's campaign rally speeches and he stammers and stutters a LOT sans prompter. This is where the 57 states comment and others originated from (being off the prompter). The guy is pretty weak doing "live" events or fielding questions unless they were the ones he already had the list for in advance. Biden is just a wild card. You don't know whats coming out of his mouth next and neither does he. The only reason they got paired up is because people knew Obama had zero experience for he job he we being given and Biden had experience. Obama can read off a card and be convincing, Biden can read off a card and you never know what will come out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yeah, well, we'll see in the debates. Of course you can cut and paste a bunch of stuff to make a hilarious YouTube. As for Biden, I've gotta give you that one. That may be the reason he's been one of the most invisible VPs I can remember in recent times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You guys seem to miss the point that Obama creamed his opponents in the debates - both primary and general - without a teleprompter. Or perhaps it's just that his policy positions were so much better. Either way, the reality that he won the election without the teleprompter (which only works for prepared, scripted speeches - not for the cut and thrust of debate) seems to have a hard time sinking through the FOX-implanted teleprompter meme. Say anything enough times, regardless all evidence to the contrary, and a certain number of people are going to adopt it as fact I guess. You go on believing that he'd be helpless without it - regardless what millions witnessed with their own eyes - if it makes you feel better. I'm just pointing out the complete disconnect with reality in the teleprompter criticism. The difference this time will be obama's record.....his poor performance.....he'll get his clock cleaned this time.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The difference this time will be obama's record.....his poor performance.....he'll get his clock cleaned this time.... The first time, he was elected on his record.... Here! Present! Yo! His record is less ambiguous today. I mourn for this country if he IS reelected on that record. The tipping point would be reached. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Tipping point indeed. The "anybody but (enter name here) " type of election is never good but in this case could be a road to recovery. Even, if at the last minute the messiah backed out and another more centralist dem got in, it would be better than obama. I agree, the extremely hard left position of obama has been bad for the US and continues to be. I would even admit that some things the right want go too far and some of the moderate dems have good idea's...but obama....he's that guy that is smiling to your face assuring you all will be fine while at the same time he has sent the goon squad to burn down your home. I like what Ron Paul has been saying, his foreign policy is his achille's heel. I think I'm leaning more libertarian in a lot of ways, but I'm not an isolationist. Possibly reel in the military from places around the world, but there still has to be a presence in certain area's. Like I said, if it was a choice of obama or a bag of hammers....bag of hammers it is. Or to be even more to the point, I don't think a dem president in history has been more actively working against the interests of the US as obama. (even wilson!) 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Like I said, if it was a choice of obama or a bag of hammers....bag of hammers it is. The bag of hammers sure beats most of the Gopper chimps so far. Where does the GOP find them? So far, the Gopper debates beat the hell out of any sitcom out there. Great comedy! Maybe the GOP could take it to Vegas? Rick Perry vs the bag of hammers? Newt vs the bag of hammers? Then again, maybe Newt is a bag of hammers . . . 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) The difference this time will be obama's record.....his poor performance.....he'll get his clock cleaned this time.... I suppose if you didn't have a clue what caused the economic collapse that he has been trying to clean up, if you didn't recognize the fact that it was - as has been stated ad nauseam in the media "the biggest economic downturn since The Great Depression", if you believed that it was just another recession that we could bounce out of right away if we just cut taxes some more, or stripped away some environmental protections, or lowered the minimum wage, or if you have already fooled yourself into forgetting who was in office when it started (just as you have fooled yourself into believing that Obama won the last election using a teleprompter), if you had no clue that it was the result of 30 years of supply side orthodoxy (or as Bush I once called it "voodoo economics"), and if you were completely blind to the single-minded obstructionism that has characterized the party of no for the past 3 years - to the point of imperiling the whole country to accomplish their political objectives - all the while they have NO economic plan of their own except more of what got us into this, then I suppose you could imagine Obama getting his clock cleaned based on his "poor performance". It takes a special kind of cluelessness. Edited January 13, 2012 by retro-man 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I suppose if you didn't have a clue what caused the economic collapse that he has been trying to clean up, if you didn't recognize the fact that it was - as has been stated ad nauseam in the media "the biggest economic downturn since The Great Depression", if you believed that it was just another recession that we could bounce out of right away if we just cut taxes some more, or stripped away some environmental protections, or lowered the minimum wage, or if you have already fooled yourself into forgetting who was in office when it started (just as you have fooled yourself into believing that Obama won the last election using a teleprompter), if you had no clue that it was the result of 30 years of supply side orthodoxy (or as Bush I once called it "voodoo economics"), and if you were completely blind to the single-minded obstructionism that has characterized the party of no for the past 3 years - to the point of imperiling the whole country to accomplish their political objectives - all the while they have NO economic plan of their own except more of what got us into this, then I suppose you could imagine Obama getting his clock cleaned based on his "poor performance". It takes a special kind of cluelessness. Denile....not just a river in Egypt. Nice "Pass" you give Obama for all that he inherited? The guy campaigned for a year telling everyone he had the answers to all of the nations problems. New ideas and the like. In reality he is no different than many a politician who either lied about what he really wanted to do to get elected or he truly has no clue what to do ( I think its both in his case). No, he did not create a lot of the current problems but he sure as hell did not make them better either. He made them worse and his addition to the debt is record setting. Obama had one of the weakest resumes for the job of president available. Now everyone sees what lack of experience means when its put in charge and making the decisions. If Bush put the economy in a nose dive Obama took the controls and hits full afterburner (down). Regardless how you feel about Obama's silver tongue the guy did not make anything better thus far. For the lions share of his elected time he and the dem's had control of both houses. There was more infighting from his own party than anything any republicans could have done to halt bills or getting anything he/ they wanted passed. 3 years running and the congress still has no listed budged ( unless that changed recently) and that's no ones fault except the party you love. There are real turds in both parties but Obama has floated to the top of that pile. With all of his wishful thinking and platitudes of utopia for all he is WAY short on how to do any of it. The sad part is some people will vote for the clown (again) and ignore what he has actually done and the "it could have been worse" mindset somehow overshadows reality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Denile....not just a river in Egypt. Nice "Pass" you give Obama for all that he inherited? The guy campaigned for a year telling everyone he had the answers to all of the nations problems. New ideas and the like. In reality he is no different than many a politician who either lied about what he really wanted to do to get elected or he truly has no clue what to do ( I think its both in his case). No, he did not create a lot of the current problems but he sure as hell did not make them better either. He made them worse and his addition to the debt is record setting. Obama had one of the weakest resumes for the job of president available. Now everyone sees what lack of experience means when its put in charge and making the decisions. If Bush put the economy in a nose dive Obama took the controls and hits full afterburner (down). Regardless how you feel about Obama's silver tongue the guy did not make anything better thus far. For the lions share of his elected time he and the dem's had control of both houses. There was more infighting from his own party than anything any republicans could have done to halt bills or getting anything he/ they wanted passed. 3 years running and the congress still has no listed budged ( unless that changed recently) and that's no ones fault except the party you love. There are real turds in both parties but Obama has floated to the top of that pile. With all of his wishful thinking and platitudes of utopia for all he is WAY short on how to do any of it. The sad part is some people will vote for the clown (again) and ignore what he has actually done and the "it could have been worse" mindset somehow overshadows reality. cal50, I do have my disappointments with Obama - no denial there. Liberal Corporate Party and Conservative Corporate Party. The ones who really would do something about it - whether from the left or the right: the Pauls and the Kucinichs and the Naders and Perots get drummed off to the margins (maybe not so easily this time in the case of Paul. I am disappointed that Obama didn't do more of what he promised - the promises that got him elected in the first place. If he had, you would have hated it - but at least we would have a clean record to judge. As it is, it has been a morass of compromise (caving in), and political stalemate. The one major thing that he did get done was "Obamacare" - which was basically a thinly-reworked Republican plan (though they now howl at it as though they had just seen Satan himself - is that cognitive disconnect, or hypocrisy?), and I'm not sure how much of a change it really is, or that it isn't yet another boon for the insurance companies. We still have remnants of Roosevelt's America, but they are being stripped away. The real agenda: that we have to cut spending, that we have to reduce the deficit, that we have to limit the size of government - those are the buzzwords that both sides are talking about - Republican and Democrat. That is the center of the discussion now - and that agenda is Reagan's agenda. We are still living in Reagan's America. I love how the Republicans set fire to the house that Obama was about to move into, then claimed that we don't have enough money to make the improvements he was planning. Obama could not possibly have fixed the economy by now from the mess that it was (nor could McCain, or Paul, or anybody else in the same timeframe) - and Republican leadership has done everything in its power to stymy him at every turn: every appointment, every budget, every initiative - so it is disingenuous to lay the blame solely at Obama's feet. I don't see Romney making things better with more warmed-over supply side and redistribution toward the top. If he does take the Presidency, I will try to be more charitable and constructive in my view of him than I was the last guy (it depends on whether he gathers the entire PNAC around him as advisors or not), and to respect the dignity of the office. And, in that spirit, I am going to limit my criticisms of him (though his rivals within the Republican party are doing a pretty good job generating material for the Obama campaign right now. For that matter, so is he with his "envy" remarks and the like). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Retro, Are you better off now than you were before Obama came to power? I can tell you for certain that I am far worse off. And it wasn't anything that happened under Bush or Reagan that caused it. They are going to vote based on their reality. Based on his record, who do you think is going to vote for Obama, and why? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I suppose if you didn't have a clue what caused the economic collapse that he has been trying to clean up, if you didn't recognize the fact that it was - as has been stated ad nauseam in the media "the biggest economic downturn since The Great Depression", if you believed that it was just another recession that we could bounce out of right away if we just cut taxes some more, or stripped away some environmental protections, or lowered the minimum wage, or if you have already fooled yourself into forgetting who was in office when it started (just as you have fooled yourself into believing that Obama won the last election using a teleprompter), if you had no clue that it was the result of 30 years of supply side orthodoxy (or as Bush I once called it "voodoo economics"), and if you were completely blind to the single-minded obstructionism that has characterized the party of no for the past 3 years - to the point of imperiling the whole country to accomplish their political objectives - all the while they have NO economic plan of their own except more of what got us into this, then I suppose you could imagine Obama getting his clock cleaned based on his "poor performance". It takes a special kind of cluelessness. Yeah that would explain why the American people sent a record number of Republicans to the house in Nov. 2010....not.....the problem with liberals is that they think that all Americans think like them....according to a recent Gallup poll the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative...... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Retro, Are you better off now than you were before Obama came to power? I can tell you for certain that I am far worse off. And it wasn't anything that happened under Bush or Reagan that caused it. They are going to vote based on their reality. Based on his record, who do you think is going to vote for Obama, and why? Mixed bag. Economically - much worse off. xr7g428, if it were not for the fact that I have been decrying these 3 things: 1.) "free" trade (without backbone to insist on a level field - but rather only serving corporate profits gained by outsourcing and suppressing domestic wages), 2.) Financialization (the parasitic colonization of the real economy by the financial economy), and 3.) Widening polarization of wealth (i.e. the assault on the middle and lower classes) for the past 12 years, with "The Great Recession" being the culmination of everything that I predicted would result - if it were not for that fact, I might be able to take the narrow view that your question presupposes. I blame both parties - they are both in on it, and I think there is a growing awareness of that, as well as a growing unwillingness to put up with it any more. OWS this past year was just the beginning - just the Selma lunch counter - if the idiots defending the status quo don't see the writing on the wall, Watts and Harlem will surely follow. I'm not anxious to see anything like that - but damn it, if the fools won't listen..... I have asked the question a thousand times - now that we have reached levels of income inequality not seen since the gilded age: how much imbalance are you willing to tolerate? And always I get the abstract response: How does taking money away from a rich person help the poor person? Well, first a couple of facts: 1.) All this wealth in the hands of the wealthy is obviously failing to help anybody but the wealthy. It is not creating jobs, nor is it making the ones that are created any better. On the contrary, most of the jobs currently being created stink. 2.) In 2008, the top 400 tax filers reported an average income of $270.5 million. That's a total of $108,200,000,000.00 between those 400 individuals - or enough to create over 2,000,000 jobs at $50,000 / yr.. I pointed out how David Tepper's take in 2009 alone, could lower the national unemployment rate by a full percentage point if translated into minimum wage jobs. It is a zero sum game, regardless of whether you state otherwise or not. The deck is stacked to incentivize offshoring of production, depression of wages and benefits, and to direct the gains from that to the top, where they do NOT create any additional jobs for the US. We have had 3 decades of increasing productivity and stagnating wages - so who is taking wealth from whom? The gains of the wealthy are ill-gotten, on the backs of those actually doing the work, and the concentration of wealth at the top is killing the economy for everybody else. If some of those gains, rather than profit to shareholders, had been spent on better wages and benefits and increased staffing (reduced working hours) for American workers, and if those workers were in an economy where it made sense to buy products made by other American workers in turn earning a living wage, we would be in far better shape than we are. Ford wanted his workers to earn enough to be able to buy what they make. He understood that this was the basis of a prosperous economy. How many of the new UAW members coming on at $28k / yr. are going to be in the market for a new car? Only the ones living in their mother's basements. Gotta go - the most beautiful sunset I have ever seen going on right outside. Ok, back. Answer to the 2nd part of your question: Those who believe that the Democratic party cares more about them than the Republican party does (albeit plenty of evidence that neither side does), those who understand that supply-side has failed (hint: that's why we're in the worst shape we've been in 75 years), those who don't want the government in their bedroom or the church in their schools and senates. That's who is going to vote for Obama. Regardless our differing views on how we got to where we're at - I have an appreciation for what you do, respect for your views, and sincerely hope this year will be much better than last for you. If that requires regime change, well, I'll survive that too either way. Edited January 14, 2012 by retro-man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.