The Back Alley Archives

Even those at The Guardian....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

he definitely stammers and 'ummms' alot i must say...i thought he was a better speaker actually...has he developed that bad speech habit just recently?

only when not reading from the teleprompter, rad.

As opposed to the previous occupant to which English was a second language.

^bush's style and choice of words is no different than obama's 'intellectual pause and stammer' approach to display swagger.

Wrong - they are very different. And Obama knows what he is talking about when he responds - unlike Bush who used to embarrass this country every time he opened his mouth.

My favorite comment in his recent press conference was when he owned that tool from CNN by saying that he likes to know what he is talking about before he responds.

Obama doesn't know shit. Bush was even worse. Obama's just a better spoken idealogueiot.

wrong? you do acknowledge the stammer right? you're intelligent enough to see it i'm sure....the stammer is a bit misleading because we all know all our presidents are in the know.

just sayin that the 'ummms' and the pauses and the hesitation comes off as being guarded (nervous in the worst case)...even the biggest homers admit that....both guys know what they're talking about regardless of our emotional opinions....both have different styles imo.

bush's style is a down-home-texas style don't you think slider? you're a texas dude...you know it.

obama's style is preacher-like speaking from the pulpit with way too many stammers and over-emphasizing on simple statements and words...i'm sure he's knowledgeable...no doubt about that...his delivery when not teleprompted sounds too 'careful'...given the tonight show comments, i guess he's learning his lesson but he's gotta execute a lil better if he wishes to pursue the reverend-like approach

Measured idiocy is still idiocy.

wrong? you do acknowledge the stammer right? you're intelligent enough to see it i'm sure....the stammer is a bit misleading because we all know all our presidents are in the know.

just sayin that the 'ummms' and the pauses and the hesitation comes off as being guarded (nervous in the worst case)...even the biggest homers admit that....both guys know what they're talking about regardless of our emotional opinions....both have different styles imo.

bush's style is a down-home-texas style don't you think slider? you're a texas dude...you know it.

obama's style is preacher-like speaking from the pulpit with way too many stammers and over-emphasizing on simple statements and words...i'm sure he's knowledgeable...no doubt about that...his delivery when not teleprompted sounds too 'careful'...given the tonight show comments, i guess he's learning his lesson but he's gotta execute a lil better if he wishes to pursue the reverend-like approach

Bush's style is fake Texas - considering he was born in CT, he is more of a parody. I know plenty of native born Texans who don't talk like he does.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama's style. It seems to me like he is being extra careful and guarded at times. And after Bush's shoot from the lip style, I am Ok with Obama's style.

you have a problem with Obama empowering our enemies by apologizing for our "arrogance"? no longer opposing Iranian enrichment? you all (democrats) threw a fucking temper tantrum over Bush's deficit, yet you have no problem with absolute insanity of Obama's?

Of course, you don't have a problem with any of that, because after all...he's not Bush.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, he does oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions. Secondly, don't say a fucking word about economic policies. You Republicans mortgaged our future and squandered a surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and a war of convenience in Iraq. Until you say those things were wrong, STFU!

i'd rather follow a guy who shoots from the hip than a suit who stammers to the point that he sounds guarded.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, he does oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions. Secondly, don't say a fucking word about economic policies. You Republicans mortgaged our future and squandered a surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and a war of convenience in Iraq. Until you say those things were wrong, STFU!

This is something I don't understand about the liberal point of view on this topic. If Bush spent to much, mortgaged our children's future, etc. And you obviously (as I do) think that was WRONG, then why does spending EVEN more, mortaging our children's future EVEN more, make things any better?

I can totally understand the liberal's POV on the war, etc. But the economy just baffles me. How is it better to dig the hole even deeper after your opponent supposedly dug it in the first place?

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff...

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, he does oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions. Secondly, don't say a fucking word about economic policies. You Republicans mortgaged our future and squandered a surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and a war of convenience in Iraq. Until you say those things were wrong, STFU!

Of course those things were wrong: they were the actions of the corporate politicians who comprise our ruling class. This is why I love saying everyone is a fuck up. Nobody can tell me to stfu, LOL, instead y'all just ignore my type (which is fine, whatev).

It always cracks me up how much Bush II lowered the expectations of this once great nation. Why can't we have someone who answers a difficult question in the only reasonable way possible? (i.e. you pause, collect your thoughts, and then answer.) Is it because our expectations are so simply that we just want answers that make some sort of sense, no matter how simple? And as long as we get SOME kind of answer NOW, well then, you're an alright guy to enough people to get elected Prez.

m7, Liberals will say that the money is a sound "investment" in the future, that they are simply pulling demand forward for certain products and services rather than giving blanket tax cuts that go to buy environment-destroying SUVs :eyeroll:

What liberals fail to realize is that all spending by the government is an economic loss once you get past the basic security of our sovereignty, the maintenance of the rule of law, and certain issues arising from the tragedy of the commons.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, he does oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions. Secondly, don't say a fucking word about economic policies. You Republicans mortgaged our future and squandered a surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and a war of convenience in Iraq. Until you say those things were wrong, STFU!

and there you hit the democratic talking point. God damn all those rich people. You democrats want a nation of dependent sheep that you can manipulate to your point of view. That's why you continue to support and expand welfare and its variations. So, until you admit THAT is wrong, then YOU can STFU.

m7 more or less said what I was going to say for the rest of this post...so I'll refer you back to her post.