Or is it 59??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws



So, is this better or worse than not being able to spell potato?

You mean Bush is not the only one who makes mistakes in public speaking! My world is shaken! I don't know what to believe now, I am lost! ...I feel cold.

Need a hug??

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So, is this better or worse than not being able to spell potato?

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

You mean Bush is not the only one who makes mistakes in public speaking! My world is shaken! I don't know what to believe now, I am lost! ...I feel cold.

You're right. There was Dan Quayle, too, who went on the attack against Candice Bergen who played Murphy Brown, for having a child.

That said, Bush isn't the only one who makes mistakes while speaking. The homeless schizophrenic that begs for spare change does that, too, only he hasn't started 2 wars.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

That said, Bush isn't the only one who makes mistakes while speaking. The homeless schizophrenic that begs for spare change does that, too

So.... you are comparing Barack Obama to a homeless schizophrenic? Thats kinda mean don't ya think?

Is Fedyakin the only other person who's watched the video? Obama is implying there are at least 59 states.

Obama just said something dumb! George W Bush does that often enough to fill several volumes, and have his own word. Whether you think he believes a word of it or not, everybody who's been paying attention, and most who haven't, credit Barack Obama for being an eloquent speaker. George Bush Jr, on the other hand, can hardly speak the English language. I know there's that idea about one instance making a trend, and all...

Now, back to what this thread is clearly comparing Obama to:

1. Bushisms
2. George W Bushisms
3. More George W Bushisms
4. Still More George W Bushisms
5. The Ultimate George W Bushisms
6. George W Bushisms 5: New Ways to Hurt our Country

What was the point about Obama, again?

The point about Obama? I agree, the guy is slick. I've watched many an Obama speech and there aren't many outtakes. I think some of it is how he speaks.... very.... slowly.... with.... long.... pauses..... for..... dramatic.... effect.....

He actually misspeaks quite often, but immediately corrects himself and it all plays out very smoothly. The 57 states thing was a gaffe from a guy generally speaking says specifically what he means and uses words in ways to manipulate /cough motivate people. Maybe that makes int noteworthy. So why bother rambling on about it?

It took a while for what he said in San Francisco to really hit home with me, and to find why it was so unsettling. I'll post it here.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This guy isn't Dubya. When this stuff rolls out of his mouth, hes thought about it and it comes out polished and how he wants it to be. In one sentence, he lumps the religious, those who own guns, racists, and immigrant haters into a single group, essentially equating these things. This is how people get when they are bitter. Now while I know that Obama believes pretty much all those things are "bad", I also know he is religious. So why lump religion into a "bad things people do when they get bitter" list? Its not a gaffe.

The only answer I could come up with is that he was speaking to a godless group of left coast San Franciscans, and adjusted his speech accordingly. Its called pandering, and its almost become something we expect from politicians. But when a guy who is willing to throw his religion under the bus when its convenient and the cameras aren't rolling, it makes me wonder. This is the same guy who was willing to sit in a racist church for 20 years because it suited his political needs at the time. Religion was ALL good then.

After thinking about it, the concern about these words has nothing to do with whether he thinks religion is good or bad, or whether he thinks guns are good or bad, or whether he looks down on the good people of middle America. The concern about these words is that they expose something about him that is normally very difficult to see through the polished veneer. He is your typical run of the mill politician, albeit a very clever one, who will say or do whatever he needs to to get people to vote for him. For most politicians, it wouldn't be an issue. Hilary dodges non-existent bullets in Bosnia and everyone says, "oh well, shes a politician". Barack, on the other hand, is viewed by many like he is some kind of post partisan Messiah. It makes me wonder how much appeal he will really have in the general election if his veneer wears thin and people see he is just another self serving, lying scumbag.

Originally Posted by cbwm

But when a guy who is willing to throw his religion under the bus

If the guy were truly willing to "throw his religion under the bus" - in deeds, rather than words - I'd strongly consider voting for him. Bush's first veto was against scientific research looking into how to cure more ailments than any of us have time to list. We're funding abstinence only to exclusion, even though it makes the problem of teen pregnancy worse. Et cetera. We can only hope Obama's administration is less evangelical and more secular than the one it'll replace!

Also, I have to take issue with you "when ... the cameras aren't rolling" bit. Obviously, there was at least one camera, microphone, or reporter there, for you to be able to mine the quote. Pandering still happens, but there's no such thing as 'off the record.' As your quote proves.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ae-Ak9WuUio

isn't Pudu a language from Star Wars??

No politician can speak clearly without a teleprompter except maybe Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.. The rest are so managed that they stumble all over themselves when trying to speak on their own..

Now this is much better than 57 states. Apparently Obama's uncle served in the Red Army under Stalin, by his own admission! Thats right! His uncle was part of the forces that liberated Auschwitz which, as history makes very clear, was the Soviet Red Army!

Of course he later clarified his statement to say that it was his Great Uncle and the camp was Buchenwald which was, in fact, liberated by the U.S.. Getting further clarification on the clarification, it turns out the 89th Infantry, of which his great uncle was a part of, liberated Ohrdruf, not Buchenwald. Interestingly, Ohrdruf was a labor camp, not an extermination camp.

Outright lies are always better than gaffs, and this one falls into the Hillary Clinton "Bullets flying overhead" category of BS. It makes me wonder, when you know every word of your mouth will be recorded and examined, why lie? Maybe that is the true genius of Bush. The guy gaffs so much, it serves as camouflage for the BS.

At least saying 57 states was just mis-speaking. I remember a guy back in highschool who was looking at a north american map one day and said something along the lines of "I thought there were 50 states, Im counting 52" It turns out he thought Canada and Mexico were states.

Yeah, but the guy running for president isn't a high school student and has been ordained the smartest man in politics..

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Yeah, but the guy running for president isn't a high school student and has been ordained the smartest man in politics..

According to this, the word crafty may fit better than the word smart. In a nutshell, he got all three of his opponents thrown off of the ballot in his first run at office in Chicago. He did this by getting the election board to disqualify any nominating signature on his opponents applications which was not in cursive. Apparently, there is some obscure law that requires the nominating signatures to be cursive and not simple hand written text. The minute the filing deadline was up, his office requested copies of all his opponents applications. After days of pouring over the signatures, they challenged hundreds of the signatures on each application and eventually got ALL of his competition, including the incumbent, disqualified on technicalities. While some may feel this tarnishes his "post partisan nice guy" image, I actually developed a new respect for him .

Originally Posted by cbwm

According to this, the word crafty may fit better than the word smart. In a nutshell, he got all three of his opponents thrown off of the ballot in his first run at office in Chicago. He did this by getting the election board to disqualify any nominating signature on his opponents applications which was not in cursive. Apparently, there is some obscure law that requires the nominating signatures to be cursive and not simple hand written text. The minute the filing deadline was up, his office requested copies of all his opponents applications. After days of pouring over the signatures, they challenged hundreds of the signatures on each application and eventually got ALL of his competition, including the incumbent, disqualified on technicalities. While some may feel this tarnishes his "post partisan nice guy" image, I actually developed a new respect for him .

I saw a story on this last night. They were talking about how dirty chicago style politics are and how Obama rose up in the city. It reminded me of the big meeting scene from the Godfather where all the heads of the families were assembled from across the US- except Chicago, because of how brutal and uncivilized the city was.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Is Fedyakin the only other person who's watched the video? Obama is implying there are at least 59 states.

I watched it. He is implying that we have 60 states though. He said he has been to 57, he has one left to visit, and he wasn't able to visit Hawaii or Alaska - so that would be 60 states.

I am cutting him some slack though...he obviously meant to say 47, not 57.

I think maybe the point is if Obama had said the correct number of states, he wouldn't have doubled our national debt by playing war games in Iraq. No, wait, that was GWB.

Originally Posted by angele803

I am cutting him some slack though...he obviously meant to say 47, not 57.

You must be some far-left liberal for saying that