Teleprompter versus no Teleprompter
Posted By: J.C. Bridger on 2009-03-26
In Reply to:
Check out Letterman!
Teleprompter versus no Teleprompter
by: Alex Leo
Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:
"Obama's reliance on the teleprompter is unusual -- not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small."
They make an interesting point, why would a president want to be prepared and careful about what he says? The guy who had the job for the last eight years didn't need no stinkin' teleprompter!
Well, David Letterman addressed the outrage last night with his segment 'Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter.' It was enlightening to say the least.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/teleprompter-vs-no-telepr_n_178474.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Of course: Teleprompter. NM
x
No teleprompter for O
A friend sent this to me. Can't argue with it, can ya?
I'm writing J.Leno and D.Letterman ato why they have not aired this yet. Are they prejudiced against GWB?? Nah! Bush Derangement Syndrome had better go away once The Messiah gets in. I'm not putting any bets on it, though.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk Obama - When There Is No Teleprompter
Circuits must be misfiring.
Incidentally, I'm looking forward to Glenn's new show! What you see is what you get with him!
Like when SP lied and said her teleprompter
didn't work and it didn't work for like 2 seconds, but she wanted to sound good so she said she didn't have the teleprompt and just winged the speech. Yep, like that.
Obama needs a teleprompter
and he is running for pres. Once again....the argument people try to use against Palin can usually be said about B.O. but that is okay because it is Barry Obama. All hail uhhhbama.
SAY NO TO B.O.!
You probably need to get a bigger teleprompter as I see
you are all stumbling in your reply here. Duh?
Oops! He left his teleprompter for a
you will notice, he is getting his economic TEAM together to come up with him some new IDEAS for a new policy. You would think he could come up with his own ideas and then ask for help making them work.
I will give The Teleprompter credit. nm
xx
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
On teleprompter at Convention, they had nuclear spelled as newclear
so she would pronounce it correctly! Unfortunately, she did not have it there for Gibson interview, so she said nuculear. Pet peeve of mine.
Obama can't do a town hall meeting...he needs his teleprompter so he can
remember what to say on that given day.
versus
The first sura of the Qur'an is an example of this. It is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)
Muhammad was once asked if these words pertained to Jews and Christians. His response was, "Whom else?" (Bukhari 56:662).
you need versus?
xx
mean versus Obama
Notice how many of the really mean posts, like the one who called Senator Obama, Osambo, are pro-McCain/Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin never focus on the issues. Listen to them closely - what exactly are they going to do about unemployment, foreclosures, poverty, the meth epidemic across the nation, health care, taxes, and the war that has been going on far too long? Can you answer these questions? All John McCain does is talk about Obama. John McCain is losing the election and running scared, so he attacks Obama. Check out the facts. Obama was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was a radical. Ayers is in his 60s and a washed-up radical. Have you even looked at a picture of this man? It will make you laugh when you realize this is the guy McCain is associating Obama with in hopes that McCain can win the election. It is one attack after another. Senator Obama was raised in Kansas by his "white" grandmother. Senator Obama has two young children whom he takes to soccer practice regularly. McCain is making Obama sound like some kind of terrorist. How many terrorists take their kids to soccer practice? Do you think Senator Obama would jeporadize his children's lives by being a terrorist? His kids look pretty well-adjusted to me.
I live in Arizona where McCain is our senator. Arizona also has a huge meth epidemic, high percentage of poverty, horrible health care, and racism to say the least. Even Arizona's State Governor, Janet Napolitano, is endorsing Senator Obama. She has had to work side-by-side with John McCain and she isn't even endorsing him. Do you think the Governor of Arizona would endorse Senator Obama if he was the terrorist that the McCain/Palin ticket is trying to make him out to be. Even a 1st grader could see that McCain is bitter because he is losing.
You have to be really gullible to believe anything the McCain/Palin ticket has to say. Honestly ask yourself what you think John Mcain is going to do for this country in the next four years if he can't even help his own state of Arizona.
Upwards of $500,000 versus $10.....sm
It does make one wonder, doesn't it?
I wonder if the POTUS can be held in contempt of court?
wilson versus rove
Ms. Wilson is Valerie Plame, she is married to Joseph Wilson. She worked for the CIA but Rove gave her name to Robert Novak, thus jeopardizing her life.
abortion versus rudolph
Science has not determined when life begins, at conception? After the first trimester? But the argument is moot, actually, as it is legal to get an abortion, it is not legal to take the law into your own hands and kill because you do not agree with the legal medical procedure that is being performed. Enormous difference. Law abiding citizens do not kill because they disagree with the law.
Facts versus opinion.
If you choose to ignore the facts, so be it.
unborn versus born
I do not think they would choose their life over a child that was already born, but I do think many would choose (and do choose) their own life over an unborn child's life. And by life I don't necessarily mean a medical condition. If my daughter were a teenager (she is not quite there yet) and she was pregnant, and she chose abortion, her father and I would certainly support that choice versus her giving up a promising future to raise an unwanted child, especially at such a young age.
I know others would not choose that, but many do everyday. Certainly, I think men and women should choose birth control, abstinence, etc., but birth control fails, mistakes happen, rape happens, incest happens, and I don't feel anyone should have to give birth if they don't want to or aren't prepared for the responsibility of parenting.
Many women chose to give their babies up for adoption, and that is a wonderful choice for them. However, not the best choice for everyone. I want everyone to be able to have that choice.
Attack versus observation
So if someone called me a big, fat, smelly, ugly, loud-mouthed, foul hag that could qualify as an observation (in your words) and would therefore be acceptable? I mean, technically someone could say they OBSERVED these traits in me. When does something cross the line and become a personal attack?
My take on all this is that if it originates from one of the C-posters it's an observation. If it originates from an L-poster it's an attack. Not always, but in general. Could be due to the whole political board system have a very very far right-leaning slant........
experience versus wisdom
to change the downward course of the nation. Haven't you been listening?
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Income tax versus sales tax......sm
Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........
Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?
I'll post my opinion separate from this.
deflation versus inflation
Deflation is better no matter what they say.
There has never been a country who went into hyperinflation that did not have a collapse of the government. (bankruptcy or worse)
I will go with the pay cut and cheaper gas.
Stimulus versus tax cuts
Stimulus means SPENDING
Non-refundable tax rebates means every $1.00 spent creates $1.02 in economic activity. 2 freaking cents (makes sense to the pubs.....I guess)
Infrastructure - every dollar spent equals $1.59 in economic activity (bridges, roads, etc.)
Food stamps (which the pubs want to cut out of the bill) - every dollar spent equals $1.73 in economic activity. This is the single most productive stimulus we have. Food stamps will get SPENT, unlike tax rebates.
If the pubs have their way, the bill will be 42% tax cuts which will not benefit job creation or improve the economy. They want to fail. Why? And you all call your senators to support this? If it gets pushed through like this, you have only yourselves to blame when everything goes to helll. You can't blame Obama for this cluster.
Independent versus Liberal...sm
" In the political realm, an Independent is generally the term used to describe a candidate who is not affiliated with any political party. The word has evolved to some degree and can also be used to describe a candidate who is not a member of a country’s main political parties. In the United States, if one is not a Republican or a Democrat, one might be referred to as an Independent or a third party candidate
Liberalism in the United States is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation or grom the existing class structure.
"First, liberalism holds that there is no way to authenticate and prove as true any one version of the Christian faith...Second, liberalism rejects the Bible as being the actual Word of God to man...Third, liberalism restates the doctrine of Christ to show his utter humanity...Fourth, liberalism denies that the Bible has any inherent moral authority over men...Fifth, liberalism denies that mankind is lost and under the condemnation of sin...Sixth, liberalism has no concern with the New Testament concept of the church."
According to this I qualify as a political Independent and a religious Liberal.
Chickenhawks versus true heros
Oh wow, this is a great post. Makes the point and leaves no doubt about who the true heros are.
Chavez oil versus American fat cat oil companies
Article from Juan Gonzalez, a NY Daily News columnist, RE: Hugo Chavez and his oil versus American oil companies:
Oil fat cats vs. Hugo Chavez |
|
|
I pulled into the Mobil gas station on 11th Ave. in Manhattan yesterday for my weekly stickup from the oil companies.
Their take this time was an astonishing $3.05 per gallon for premium unleaded.
"Every three or four days the price goes up," said Patel, the man in charge of the station. "Lots of complaints from my customers."
Complaints from everyone except oil executives.
Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.
Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.
Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly," Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least "focused our government's attention on a growing problem."
That "problem," quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.
Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.
Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.
Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.
Under the agreement, Venezuela will supply 22,000 barrels of oil a day to Jamaica for a mere $40 a barrel. That's far lower than the current world price of about $65 a barrel. With the price of gasoline in that destitute nation already more than $3.50 a gallon, the Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.
Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.
The agreement is part of a broader Chavez plan called Petrocaribe, which he unveiled at a Caribbean summit in Venezuela last June.
At that conference, Chavez offered the same kind of deal to the leaders of more than a dozen other neighboring nations, including Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Fernandez jumped at the offer because his government is nearly bankrupt from oil prices. Last year, the Dominican Republic spent $1.2 billion on oil imports; this year, it expects to fork out more than $3 billion. The price of gasoline in Santo Domingo has zoomed past $4 a gallon in recent days.
Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.
But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.
Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.
A dangerous man, indeed.
|
Roe versus Wade majority and problems with the law
Actually, I've read where if put to a vote polls have shown that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. Whether abortion is right or wrong aside many people, including many liberal lawyers say that RVW is a badly written law in the first place.
primary opponent versus people
from own party who make their living promoting the repub cause. Big difference in motivation.
Semantics versus common sense...
As I mentioned previously, the phrase I mentioned was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constititution. I never mentioned citizens at all, and neither did that phrase.
What I did say is that the law of this land - and any country I am aware of - protects human life, and I'm pretty sure there is little argument that a pregnant woman is always pregnant with a human life...not a gopher, a lampshade, or a pickle. There has never been a human pregnancy that produced anything other than a human being. We (human beings) have laws to protect other human beings. I just don't understand why some people don't think unborn human beings should be included in that protection. Hiding behind religious differences, constitutional "technicalities," and "live and let live" rhetoric doesn't negate the fact that human beings give birth to human beings, and if you kill that human being - any human being, either in the womb or out, it is wrong, ethically, morally, by all human standards and all human laws in all countries of which I am aware.
I know - it was like watching the dead versus the animated
HA HA HA. I was too busy watching her had to watch it a second time to see his reaction. Don't even think he moved. Maybe it was a mannequin. HA HA HA
Companies that offshore---Hillary versus Barack
I wanted to make you all aware during this election that Hillary Clinton is co-chair of the Friends of India Caucus---not good!
Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
PLEASE, everybody, see that Barack Obama is for keeping jobs in America and has shown this by passing this tax credit to encourage jobs in America. This is something he has already done, so we know he will help us fight this in the future. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY, who supports our jobs being outsourced.
I have stood behind Barack Obama and have sent emails questioning what he plans to do to help MTs in America. Just do the research and spread the word, PLEASE, not to vote for Hillary and to maintain support with Barack, who has shown he is BEHIND US!!
I believe that one of the ways we can ALL show support is to refuse to accept a position with a company that outsources offshore. I used to work for Spheris and did so for five years, but the company I work for now does not offshore and I will continue on in this direction. LET'S HELP OUR AMERICAN-BASED MT COMPANIES, AS SMALL AS THEY MAY BE, PROSPER!! Apply for a job with a company that does not offshore! We have to start somewhere!
I promise to never work for a company that offshores...will you? I promise to help keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House...will you?
Biden versus McCain health issues, sm
I think it is interesting that issues are made on Sen. McCain's health, but I have heard nothing about Sen. Biden's past health issues. Approximately 20 years ago, Sen. Biden underwent surgery to repair two brain aneurysms. I would consider that a pretty serious issue for the #2 man in charge of our country.
There have been reports in the news about Sen. Biden getting some history mixed up, and misspeaking at times. Could this not so much be something to joke about as it could be the long-term effect of his prior condition.
Just something that has been on my mind.');>![](http://forum.mtstars.com/smileys/sowhat.gif")
If this nation is to survive, it is no longer US VERSUS THEM, we have to find a way to .....sm
stand united, and when our representatives are proposing or propositioning or supporing something that is NOT supported by the PEOPLE, their constituents, then we have to make calls, write letters, fax, vote, ect. I believe this two party system is doomed and that it is antiquated, there is such an ideological wall between the two parties that nothing will get done with all the finger pointing, blaming, etc. The American people are wise enough to know what is good for them, what works for them (and I mean a majority of us, not "chosen few" of Wall Street, lobbyists, oil interests, etc)., the representatives have to come back to the people. So sick of the blame game and insults, if we love this country and "the American way of life" we had all better band together, work together, LISTEN to each other's fears and needs, and concentrate on now and THE FUTURE, the long-haul. Just my humble opinion, this is all getting old and tired, and such a waste of time and energy. Instead of insulting on this board, perhaps we can spend time getting in touch with our representatives' offices, and perhaps getting a broader base of support for the Independent Party (isn't independce what we are all about?) IMHO
Biblical worldview versus secular worldview
Here's where the debate breaks down, and we come to an impasse...
You come from a secular world view, and I come from a Biblical world view. I see where marriage was ordained in the Garden of Eden. You see that it was established later on based on economics. You see us as just animals, but I see us as being higher than the animals though mammalian in design. You think because ancient societies embraced homosexuality (the Greek empire and the Roman empired that it made homosexuality okay). I see the reason these societies fell/dissolved was because of their overly decadent lifestyles which included rampant homosexuality and far worse killing other humans as sport. You know, Christians were fed to Lions and burned from poles for lamplight in ancient Rome.
Because I come from Biblical worldview you see me as judgemental and intolerant, but from my worldview I see the historical consequences societies have paid for endorsing and embracing ideas such as homosexuality and disregard for human life.
Obama's education versus Palin's education
Barack Obama attended Occidental College, but received his undergraduate degree in political science from Columbia University, an Ivy League member currently ranked 9th in the country by U.S. News and World Report. Obama also graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Harvard Law School, where he also served as President of the Harvard Law Review.
Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.
Obama bashing versus Palin bashing... sm
Obama will be in the forefront for the next 4 years, assuming the electoral college pans out the way the popular vote did and providing his BC holds up in court.
Palin, on the other hand, has gone back to the frozen tundra. Whether she resurfaces in 2012 remains to be seen, but can't we just wait until then to start in on her?
Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism
I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night. In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?" She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews. I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric. To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.
I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp. When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:
If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";
if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;
if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;
then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy. If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.
I think that sums it up.
|
