I try to understand you guys, I really do, but this one has me a bit puzzled. What's the deal with the teleprompter thing? Why have conservatives fixated on teleprompters? You do a search on "Obama teleprompter" and you get tons of hits. A few months ago some Republicans wanted to cut funding to the White House teleprompters.
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/15/republican-proposes-cut-funding-obama-s-teleprompter
Incidentally, I found this while looking for examples of Obama-teleprompter stuff. From everyone's favorite site: Conservapedia.
QuoteThis article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Barack Hussein Obama:
1. In a most deceitful, fascist political tactic Wikipedia's biography on Barack Obama discusses in detail his early childhood from when his parents met in 1960 to 1994 when Obama first served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then the article skips 1995 when Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of a Marxist political party called the New Party,[1] and it jumps ahead to after "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996."[2] The stink of intellectual corruption in Wikipedia reeks of deceit, censoring an entire year of Barack Obama's life as a candidate before he got elected.[3]
2. Barack Obama cannot give a coherent speech without reading from a teleprompter,[4] and even had two of them set up in an elementary school just to talk to reporters there. But Wikipedia's lengthy entry about Obama does not mention the teleprompter, not even once.
3. Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."[5] However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."[6] This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.[7]
4. Barack Obama lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.[8]
5. Wikipedia's entry on Barack Obama claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"[9] when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.[10]
6. Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"[11] but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"[12] It has since been removed.[13]
7. In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"[14] but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least FOUR TIMES since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."[15] Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative[16] while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.[17]
8. The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"[18] however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism[19], the 9/11 Truth movement[20], and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
9. Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards"[21][22][23] when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. [24] In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. [25]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia:_Obama
Political opponents will fixate on whatever they think will provide traction. Whether it actually makes any sense or not is rather immaterial.
Because teleprompters suck? Idiot boards is where it's at.
Sorry but I'm not fixated on his teleprompter. I rarely pay attention to him speaking.
I love how unless you believe that Obama got his position at Harvard because of racial quotas you are biased.
I'm not fixated upon it, but I think it's pretty obvious that as great as he is doing prepared speeches with the aid of a teleprompter, he's not so great off the cuff. He has his moments here & there, but he's never as entertaining as Biden.
Same was true for Ronnie.
But who really cares? I do not see the constitutional requirement that the President give impromtu speeches.
I already answered that Valmy.
The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.
Ehr. Are you reading the same things I'm reading? The complaints look relatively valid if true.
Well. Aside from #5 which appears highly speculative.
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
I already answered that Valmy.
The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.
If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.
Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2011, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
I already answered that Valmy.
The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.
If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.
Nobody cares about the actual issue, they just care if they can use the issue to bludgeon someone with it. The fact that the only people who "care" don't really care, they just are happy to have something to use doesn't seem to matter much, except that it just means the issue won't get THAT far.
Of course, "not that far" in some cases (see Clinton impeachment) can be pretty far. But it is all faux outrage.
And it is not like the left doesn't pull the same shit - see the brouhaha over the Shrubbery's NG records as an example. Nobody actually cares, they just all sit around telling each other that it matter so they have an excuse to bitch and whine.
I think it goes into the narrative that Obama is an 'empty suit'. If he can't give a speech without a teleprompter, and his speaking ability is supposedly one of the major reasons why he was elected, then it props up the argument that he's all style and no substance.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 17, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Same was true for Ronnie.
Come on, when he said that the bombers were heading to Russia that was pure gold.
Quote from: Caliga on May 17, 2011, 11:13:37 AM
it props up the argument that he's all style and no substance.
Unheard of in a politician.
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
It isn't a good idea to overplay the black card.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
Of course they would. Just like they cared about the white man lying about hummers, or the other white mans NG record, and the OTHER white mans purple heart.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
It isn't a good idea to overplay the black card.
I agree, the black card should be reserved for the birthers or people who call Obama a "Welfare thug".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 08:12:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
It isn't a good idea to overplay the black card.
I agree, the black card should be reserved for the birthers or people who call Obama a "Welfare thug".
Oh don't get me wrong, I play it too, just not everyday. :P
Quote from: The Brain on May 17, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2011, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
I already answered that Valmy.
The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.
If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.
They are all polite ways to say "he's a filthy nigger". And people care about that.
bingo.
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
Of course they would. Just like they cared about the white man lying about hummers, or the other white mans NG record, and the OTHER white mans purple heart.
The Obamaniacs will never admit that attacks on him are politics as usual. Save your breath.
They are fixated on race even more than Obama's critics.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 17, 2011, 11:56:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 17, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 17, 2011, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
I already answered that Valmy.
The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.
If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.
They are all polite ways to say "he's a filthy nigger". And people care about that.
bingo.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2011, 12:02:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2011, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
If he were white, nobody would give a shit about the teleprompters.
Of course they would. Just like they cared about the white man lying about hummers, or the other white mans NG record, and the OTHER white mans purple heart.
The Obamaniacs will never admit that attacks on him are politics as usual. Save your breath.
They are fixated on race even more than Obama's critics.
:yes:
The birther issue strikes me as thinly-veiled racism, but the teleprompter issue doesn't seem like that.
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2011, 07:57:50 AM
The birther issue strikes me as thinly-veiled racism, but the teleprompter issue doesn't seem like that.
The teleprompter one just strikes me a bizarre. It's like attacking the President for misrepresenting his true height because he wears shoes.
The birther issue in principle is not racist; persisting in it after the long-form birth certificate is released is, however.
It's a legitimate question whether the President was born where he says he was born. What's not legitimate is the objection that if he were born outside of the United States he would not be a natural-born citizen under the circumstances alleged.
Quote from: Scipio on May 18, 2011, 08:28:08 AM
The birther issue in principle is not racist; persisting in it after the long-form birth certificate is released is, however.
I agree with you but I don't think the crowd that was obsessed with this was/is interested in it for the same reason that you might be. I don't think studying constitutional issues is something most of them spend lots of time doing.
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2011, 08:30:03 AM
I agree with you but I don't think the crowd that was obsessed with this was/is interested in it for the same reason that you might be. I don't think studying constitutional issues is something most of them spend lots of time doing.
I think that some of them think they spend their time studying constitutional issues, but that study consists of uncritically lapping up the constitutional "scholarship" of the likes of Bachmann, Limbaugh, etc., as opposed to analyzing treatises, reviewing case reports, etc. There is a similarity in methods with the tax protestor nuts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 18, 2011, 01:13:58 PM
I think that some of the think they spend their time studying constitutional issues, but that study consists of uncritically lapping up the constitutional "scholarship" of the likes of Bachmann, Limbaugh, etc., as opposed to analyzing treatises, reviewing case reports, etc. There is a similarity in methods with the tax protestor nuts.
I believe we are basically in agreement. :hmm:
Nobody gave Johnny Hero any shit for being boring in the Panama Canal Zone. But Hawaii? Not cool if you're a negro. Nobody asked Dan Inouye for his long form, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Nobody gave Johnny Hero any shit for being boring in the Panama Canal Zone.
They did give Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis shit for being boring everywhere, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Nobody gave Johnny Hero any shit for being boring in the Panama Canal Zone.
That's a lie.
Quote from: dps on May 18, 2011, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 18, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Nobody gave Johnny Hero any shit for being boring in the Panama Canal Zone.
They did give Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis shit for being boring everywhere, though.
D'oh!