Obama, "The Messiah", "the Great One", "The Perfect Leader", and so on

[Mr.Moto]

@gonzomax

No one makes a big deal. it is just one of many examples of his vocal stumbling. if it were the only one it would have been thought of as a personal peculiarity, but there are so many others . There are many web sites with his spoonerisms and misuses.

You are perhaps not the person who should be pointing this out.

[Kearsen]

For the record:

gonzomax gonzomax is offline
Guest

Join Date: May 2006
When Reagan held press conferences, they were short and went to a select subject. His staff was scared shitless of what he would say when he went off script. Whether it was Alzheimers or if he was stupid, I don’t know, but he was a problem to his staff.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
gonzomax
View Public Profile
Find all posts by gonzomax
Add gonzomax to Your Contacts
#41 Report Post
Old 10-04-2009, 07:43 AM
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest

Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzomax View Post
When Reagan held press conferences, they were short and went to a select subject. His staff was scared shitless of what he would say when he went off script. Whether it was Alzheimers or if he was stupid, I don’t know, but he was a problem to his staff.
Teleprompter-less Obama is like his own evil twin.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Ají de Gallina
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Ají de Gallina
Add Ají de Gallina to Your Contacts
#42 Report Post
Old 10-04-2009, 12:33 PM
Lightnin’ Lightnin’ is offline
Guest

Join Date: Jan 2001
Send a message via AIM to Lightnin’ Send a message via Yahoo to Lightnin’
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Teleprompter-less Obama is like his own evil twin.
'Cause, as we all know, Obama’s the first President to use a teleprompter.

You know, we’d take you guys a lot more seriously if you ever presented anything other than strawmen as arguments.

Take that seriously?

[Lightnin]

@JThunder

I once met a nuclear engineer with a Ph.D. who still had a habit of saying “nucular.” It’s an annoyance, but I wouldn’t take that as a reflection of anything in particular.

My point is that we will, apparently, never hear the end of Obama saying we’ve got “57 States”- something he said once. Bush, on the other hand, never learned to pronounce the word “nuclear” correctly, even long after it became a sort of international joke.

Can anyone tell what, exactly, **Kearsen **is trying to say? Is that some sort of quote malfunction?

[Kearsen]

For the record:

gonzomax

When Reagan held press conferences, they were short and went to a select subject. His staff was scared shitless of what he would say when he went off script. Whether it was Alzheimers or if he was stupid, I don’t know, but he was a problem to his staff.

Ají de Gallina
Guest

Teleprompter-less Obama is like his own evil twin.

Ají de Gallina

Lightnin’

You know, we’d take you guys a lot more seriously if you ever presented anything other than strawmen as arguments.
Take that seriously?

[The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski]

@Kearsen

For the record:

gonzomax

When Reagan held press conferences, they were short and went to a select subject. His staff was scared shitless of what he would say when he went off script. Whether it was Alzheimers or if he was stupid, I don’t know, but he was a problem to his staff.

Ají de Gallina
Guest

Teleprompter-less Obama is like his own evil twin.

Ají de Gallina

Lightnin’

You know, we’d take you guys a lot more seriously if you ever presented anything other than strawmen as arguments.
Take that seriously?

I still don"t understand what you’re saying.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@gonzomax

You think that defines a better man in the street speaker? You insult the man in the street. He was a verbal stumblebum that even the masses were embarrassed by.

…yet the masses elected him twice (of course, the masses are intelligent when they despise him and dumb sheeple when they dont)

[Aji_de_Gallina]

(sorry for doubleposting)

@furt

Pretty much.

Ergo, Obama=Messiah

[The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski]

@Aji_de_Gallina

…yet the masses elected him twice

I don’t believe that to be true one bit. I believe that both elections were utter shams, and I would bet that many folks here are of a similar mindset.

[gonzomax]

Yeh but a lot of people thought he was the kind of guy they could go for a drink with. His folksiness was a sham. He is a member of a well connected extremely rich family. He had the world handed to him and was a fuck up. But money and connections win in America. Exclusive prep schools and the Ivy League was an inheritance of his. How any one bought a spoiled rich brat like him could relate to the people, I will never understand.

[Mr.Moto]

@gonzomax

Yeh but a lot of people thought he was the kind of guy they could go for a drink with. His folksiness was a sham. He is a member of a well connected extremely rich family. He had the world handed to him and was a fuck up. But money and connections win in America. Exclusive prep schools and the Ivy League was an inheritance of his. How any one bought a spoiled rich brat like him could relate to the people, I will never understand.

@gonzomax

Back when the repubs were in a majority, They were passing the bankruptcy bill. Kennedy and a couple other dem senators .tried to get amendments through. One was for exempting seniors. One for people with catastrophic illnesses. One was for soldiers who returned to Iraq several times. One amendment was to cap interest rates at 36 percent. Every one was voted down by a repub majority. But the point was a very rich man continued to fight for the disadvantaged. He drank too much and probably caroused too much. But politicians are famous for that. His heart was for the people .

Link.

Clearly you don’t believe this about all rich people or rich families, so you either got taken in yourself or you must allow for the fact that people may have different opinions about things.

Right?

[Bosstone]

@Aji_de_Gallina

(sorry for doubleposting)
Ergo, Obama=Messiah

furt’s a conservative. You two are only confirming your own bias there.

[Princhester]

@Aji_de_Gallina

As a fomer user of those words I’d like to say that the best part was how unnecessarily angry it made Liberals. If they’d played along, it’d died.

I have never understood why certain people think that making people whose politics you disagree with angry and upset is so great. There are a couple of other prominent posters who are of the same mindset: after (comparatively) recent elections they were quite open in saying that one of the best aspects of their preferred president winning an election was not that this would result in their preferred policies being implemented, but rather how much it upset those with alternate political views.

I really wonder about the mindset. I don’t think it says anything very flattering about you. Personally, I’d like to live in a country where everyone’s preferred policies were implemented, and everyone was happy with their government. I see the fact that this isn’t possible as unfortunate. What do you think it says about you that you enjoy others’ anger so much?

@Aji_de_Gallina

But I stated my opinion and did not claim it as fact, only as opinion, I can’t see the problem.

There isn’t a “problem” as such: it’s just pissweak on your part. Personally, I’d be embarrassed to post something and then walk away backwards from it trying to cover my tracks with the “it was only an opinion” excuse, but maybe that’s just me. If your opinion is so trivial that it’s not worth defending, go post it in IMHO or MPSIMS.

[Bricker]

Sure.

I mean, it’s not like he was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize after twelve days in office or anything like that.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Sure.

I mean, it’s not like he was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize after twelve days in office or anything like that.

And it’s not like he won it, either!

[sohvan]

@Bricker

Sure.

I mean, it’s not like he was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize after twelve days in office or anything like that.

Being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t mean anything. From http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/who-can-nominate/:

Who, then, may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize?

According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:

Members of national assemblies and governments, and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague and of the International Court of Justice at the Hague

Members of Institut de Droit International

University professors of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, and university presidents and directors of peace research institutes and institutes of international affairs

Former Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and board members of institutions that have previously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute

Just about anyone could probably be nominated for a Nobel by those terms without actually having done anything. If I was a university professor, I could nominate a random taxi driver and it would be valid. What’s really confusing about the whole thing is that he won. Being nominated is mostly meaningless.

Speaking as someone living in one of the Nordic countries, most of us are as confused about this as you are. While I like Obama, it was a very bad decision from the Comittee, and I think he should refuse to accept it.

[elucidator]

Well, the choices are unfortunately limited: economics, medicine, physics, literature…perhaps if there were a specific Nobel Prize for awesome…

[Tom_Tildrum]

@elucidator

Well, the choices are unfortunately limited: economics, medicine, physics, literature…perhaps if there were a specific Nobel Prize for awesome…

Outstanding Achievement in the field of Excellence.

[furt]

@Bosstone

furt’s a conservative. You two are only confirming your own bias there.

No, we’re in agreement in our exasperation at the way most political discussion on the SDMB ends up as blind partisanship, with some people insisting that Obama can do no right, and others insisting he can do no wrong, and views in the middle being shouted down.
An example might be the way people describe a libertarian who hasn’t voted Republican in years as a “conservative” because he points out some annoying things Liberals do.

[Bosstone]

@furt

An example might be the way people describe a libertarian who hasn’t voted Republican in years as a “conservative” because he points out some annoying things Liberals do.

Well, I can’t argue there. I’d much prefer that the appellations anti-liberal and anti-conservative were used instead. People who can’t focus on anything but the failings of one side or another don’t actually stand for any particular set of political beliefs and don’t deserve to be grouped with those who do.

[Lightnin]

@Bosstone

Well, I can’t argue there. I’d much prefer that the appellations anti-liberal and anti-conservative were used instead. People who can’t focus on anything but the failings of one side or another don’t actually stand for any particular set of political beliefs and don’t deserve to be grouped with those who do.

I’d like to see this, too. Nothing’s more annoying than seeing someone try to Inigo Montoya out of an argument by saying, “But I am not a Republican!”, as if being a Libertarian is some sort of “Get Out of Argument Free” card.