I ate as much as I wanted last night and didn’t ask the U.N. for permission.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why are you creating more terrorists?
Why don’t I ever get to become a terrorist? Why If I can’t eat what I want and set my thermostat to 72, maybe I’ll do it… don’t tempt me if I’m low-carbing it…[/quote]
Lixy would LUV 72; its cold up in those Afghani mountains!
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I ate as much as I wanted last night and didn’t ask the U.N. for permission.
They hate you for your caloric intake.
That’s sorta like a freedom?
Isn’t it?
I’ve just built me the mother of all IED’s (Improvised Eating Device,a.k.a a sandwich).
And no,get your own.[/quote]
They hate you for your climate control…They are jealous that you don’t have bathe to pick up the Koran because you don’t get sweaty and disgusting in the first place.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As a speaker, it’s my humble minority opinion that Obama is not as good a speaker as advertised. He delivers off the teleprompter really well and has a good sound. But off the cuff, in a townhall format, he simply isn’t all that good - and that is what defines a good speaker, in my view.
Obama is good at the saccharine, feelgood speeches - not unlike some the cheesy motivational hokum that gets posted every so often around T-Nation. That plays well for some who like the overwrought prose, but it doesn’t play well with the set looking for wisdom or depth.
It’s not a huge deal other than the fact that he is advertised as so fantastic - I think he is a good actor. Really good speakers offer something more than delivery - so Obama comes up short of being “great”.[/quote]
I actually agree. Obama =/= Bill Clinton, and everyone seems to think otherwise. He can’t improvise, and he comes off awkward as hell in interviews. I know theres a great parody on YouTube of his interview style… can’t remember what it was called though.
He does, however, have a voice and presentation that makes people feel emotions. That gives him the ability to motivate the masses. He has easily the most ‘grassroots’ supporters amongst ALL of the candidates, Ron Paul included.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
Why not? Does he really think we need to get permission from other countries to set our thermostats or decide what we want to drive?
[/quote]
We need to go back to this. No, he isn’t saying we need to get permission from other countries. He is saying we need permission from HIM. Obama is tyrant material all the way. And like with most tyrants, the people love him and invite him to the throne.
Now, this speech not only demonstrates how big a bunch of bullies and autocrats the democratic party is full of, but also Obama’s lack of understanding economics. He seems to think that there is a finite amount of wealth; that the pie is one size.
If I take a big slice then someone else must have a small slice. He doesn’t seem to realize that the pie can get bigger (with free markets) or it can get smaller (cap & trade). There is no reason we can’t all eat to our heart’s content and stay cozy at 72 degrees.
Wait, I take that back. There is a reason. It’s going to be hard to keep your thermostat at 72 degrees in California now that they are pushing to make your thermostat remote controlled so the government can adjust it.
Oh man, it’s hard to read this stuff and not laugh.
Obama was saying that we consume more per capita than others, and that some of our habits are the reason, not that he’s going to take away the ability of people to follow those habits. Of course, countries like India and China will look at our habits and simply not agree when we tell them to reduce their own consumption.
Get real! I mean, honestly, what kind of crack are you smoking to take the statement out of context and then manufacture such a fucking load of bullshit?
Also, the original post, which had a bunch of no-minds chiming in to agree with refers to a (failed) attempt at levity. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it was an attempt to describe how long and tortuous the campaign trail has been.
What deluded little world are you guys living in?
Come on guys. You like to at least pretend you are informed and intelligent… so how about not making such fools of yourselves?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man, it’s hard to read this stuff and not laugh.
Obama was saying that we consume more per capita than others, and that some of our habits are the reason, not that he’s going to take away the ability of people to follow those habits. Of course, countries like India and China will look at our habits and simply not agree when we tell them to reduce their own consumption.
Get real! I mean, honestly, what kind of crack are you smoking to take the statement out of context and then manufacture such a fucking load of bullshit?
Also, the original post, which had a bunch of no-minds chiming in to agree with refers to a (failed) attempt at levity. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it was an attempt to describe how long and tortuous the campaign trail has been.
What deluded little world are you guys living in?
Come on guys. You like to at least pretend you are informed and intelligent… so how about not making such fools of yourselves?[/quote]
I don’t care how tired I was, I wouldn’t say that there are 57 states. Never. He’s got all this Ivy League education and has his job in the Senate because he can talk…and he says there are 57 states. In fact, isn’t the main reason he’s even there because of his eloquence?
I understand the frustration given the media bias against every supposed Bush misstatement (many of which aren’t even misstatements when taken in the context of his whole statement, including the question to which he was responding), and it’s obvious vroom is just making crap up again, but I think the 57 number is explained by the number of primaries, which include a few non-states. Either that or he was really hungry and is a huge fan of Heinz…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I understand the frustration given the media bias against every supposed Bush misstatement (many of which aren’t even misstatements when taken in the context of his whole statement, including the question to which he was responding),
It’s obvious vroom is just making crap up again, but I think the 57 number is explained by the number of primaries, which include a few non-states. Either that or he was really hungry and is a huge fan of Heinz…[/quote]
LOL.
Did you hear him make the statement in context? It was very clear he was trying to be humorous…
However, as always, I expect you’ll believe what you prefer instead of reality.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I understand the frustration given the media bias against every supposed Bush misstatement (many of which aren’t even misstatements when taken in the context of his whole statement, including the question to which he was responding),
It’s obvious vroom is just making crap up again, but I think the 57 number is explained by the number of primaries, which include a few non-states. Either that or he was really hungry and is a huge fan of Heinz…
vroom wrote:
LOL.
Did you hear him make the statement in context? It was very clear he was trying to be humorous…
However, as always, I expect you’ll believe what you prefer instead of reality.[/quote]
Knee-slapper of a delivery:
It’s always so funny to read you railing on about those who won’t deal with reality or who answer based on reflexive positions, when you’re so obviously describing yourself…