Not very impressive

I bit dry, some good humor and some very good responses. What does impress me is that he obviously understands the issues for which he's responsible for making decisions, and can articulate his position well.

What exactly were you looking for?

-spence

Spence what is this, are you and I on the same page for once.
Am I getting in touch with my inner liberal? lol

I was out not catching anything.

Not the best public speaker ever to hold position thats for sure.

I watched for 10 minutes and then left the room. Seriosuly, what a bore. He still constantly sounds like he is campaigning!

I didn't see it but I want to do a Spencism here:

Parahprasing, err, Spencerphrasing here:

"Well, obviously that was a problem or two, but overall, what fantastic effort, breaking the paradigm while reaching to all parties in an effort to forward the global commons. I'm impressed at this part Abe Lincoln, part Bill Gates, part Gandhi like figure."


Spencism: Start off with partial agreemement to establish commonality with poster, than redirect to other flowery aspects, real or imagined"

:hidin::buds::shocked::cheers:

JohnR, thats f'in brilliant

I didn't see it but I want to do a Spencism here:

Parahprasing, err, Spencerphrasing here:

"Well, obviously that was a problem or two, but overall, what fantastic effort, breaking the paradigm while reaching to all parties in an effort to forward the global commons. I'm impressed at this part Abe Lincoln, part Bill Gates, part Gandhi like figure."


Spencism: Start off with partial agreemement to establish commonality with poster, than redirect to other flowery aspects, real or imagined"

:hidin::buds::shocked::cheers:


BING F'N GO! :kewl:

You have just nailed it! I was trying to put it into words, but you did a much better job than I would have.

and can articulate his position well.


Are you serious?

I guess I was hoping to see a President who could, umm, well, ahh, articulate himself well on a series of softball questions.

To be honest, I turned it on at 8:30 and the first question I saw was related to Rush Limbaugh and the state of the Republican Party. OK, thats real important. A couple more question, one about what was he most surprised, humbled, enchanted, etc., which he proceded to stumbled through (BTW, with all the chuckling with this one, was this what you think was "good humor"?). Then one on abortion, which he hemmed and hawed some more while answering. I couldn't watch anymore after that.

Like Jimmy said, it seemed like he was still campaigning and playing politics.

Bill, those are the exact same parts I saw. The abortion part was hilarious, what the hell was his point?

For someone that's fed everything from a teleprompter, he did a good job of creating the illusion that he was actually thinking of a response.

I miss the old days of a President that made up words, mispronounced anything over 2 syllables and often mixed up the two countries he decided to invade.

For someone that's fed everything from a teleprompter, he did a good job of creating the illusion that he was actually thinking of a response.

I miss the old days of a President that made up words, mispronounced anything over 2 syllables and often mixed up the two countries he decided to invade.

That's exactly the point, Obama is actually thinking up responses to the questions rather than just reciting the same tired talking points.

-spence

Spencism: Start off with partial agreemement to establish commonality with poster, than redirect to other flowery aspects, real or imagined"
What was imagined? I guess you don't think Obama has a good comprehension of the issues?

What you take for commonality I regard as objectivity. I'm simply calling it like I see it...

-spence

That's exactly the point, Obama is actually thinking up responses to the questions rather than just reciting the same tired talking points.

-spence

Spence he thought those answers up after the New York Times and the other rags emailed them to him. Your right he didn't need a prompt for that news conference. Enchanted............:bs:right

For someone that's fed everything from a teleprompter, he did a good job of creating the illusion that he was actually thinking of a response.

I miss the old days of a President that made up words, mispronounced anything over 2 syllables and often mixed up the two countries he decided to invade.

come on guys, you;re trying way to hard. If someone in my workplace attended a meeting and answered questions like that he'd be labeled an idiot. Trust me, people have, and we call the idiots.

stop comparing him to Bush, compare him to good leaders.

Spence, what I mean is that (almost) regardless of the subject, if it is critical of the left you start off with a tiny slice of agreement and then drive the topic of discussion to other points, real or imagined.

No harm no foul. Like I said, I didn't even watch the event, so I cannot (and did not) form an opinion. But I did know how the flow and rhythm (a/k/a thr Spencism) would be for your response :kewl: :heybaby: :musc: :hee: :as:.

Spence, what I mean is that (almost) regardless of the subject, if it is critical of the left you start off with a tiny slice of agreement and then drive the topic of discussion to other points, real or imagined.

No harm no foul. Like I said, I didn't even watch the event, so I cannot (and did not) form an opinion. But I did know how the flow and rhythm (a/k/a thr Spencism) would be for your response :kewl: :heybaby: :musc: :hee: :as:.

Well, I work as a consultant focused on executive value messaging. I'd just take this as good discipline in forming arguments, which need to be properly structured to be consistently effective.

If this is somehow unique enough that it deserves a personalized ummm proper'ism, then I must be even more special than I had previously thought :hihi:

-spence

Well, I work as a consultant focused on executive value messaging. I'd just take this as good discipline in forming arguments, which need to be properly structured to be consistently effective.

If this is somehow unique enough that it deserves a personalized ummm proper'ism, then I must be even more special than I had previously thought :hihi:

-spence
Yuze makin' mah point.

You probably can fix all the world's problems in PowerPoint too :lm:

Sorry Spence, just making a note that your cadance, err, executive value messaging in debate, is pretty consistent. I suppose that is pretty good in many arenas ;)

Well, I work as a consultant focused on executive value messaging. I'd just take this as good discipline in forming arguments, which need to be properly structured to be consistently effective.

If this is somehow unique enough that it deserves a personalized ummm proper'ism, then I must be even more special than I had previously thought :hihi:

-spence

This explains a lot!
You are actually trained in "double-speak".
Hell, you actually make your living at it....
You should write speeches for Obama, you compose very eloquent posts that almost make a point/decision, but there always seems to be that "back door" to be able to "deny it all".....

Don't take this wrong Spence, you are one of the more competent liberals I've ran into to. Always a fun debate...... :kewl::call::lasso:

Back to the topic at hand i don't understand why all the criticism of how Obama thought and paused about answering the questions asked i mean ummm ammmm as in if the guy says something in the least bit one way or the other someone will be making a mountain out of a mole hill anyways so i can understand his pausing to answer.Considering the pressure he or for that matter anyone else that has been POTUS i think he handled himself well at least when you look into his eyes you know their is intelligence in there not like the last guy.

eastendlu,

Quite frankly, it didn't matter what happened during the press conference. Regardless of what happened or what was said, someone would have made a post critical of it and the "Let's hate anything Obama does" crowd jumps on the bandwagon.

Posts like this just make it clear that they're reaching for straws. People will bitch and complain about anything. I'm surprised we haven't heard any complaints about what the Obamas have chosen to put in their vegetable garden.

While legitimate concerns about some of Obama's policies do exist, much of it gets drowned out by the noise of pissing and moaning over because "he says ummm too much".

eastendlu,

Quite frankly, it didn't matter what happened during the press conference. Regardless of what happened or what was said, someone would have made a post critical of it and the "Let's hate anything Obama does" crowd jumps on the bandwagon.

Posts like this just make it clear that they're reaching for straws. People will bitch and complain about anything. I'm surprised we haven't heard any complaints about what the Obamas have chosen to put in their vegetable garden.

While legitimate concerns about some of Obama's policies do exist, much of it gets drowned out by the noise of pissing and moaning over because "he says ummm too much".

Ummm Ahhh Ummmm.. sounds like the Bush bashers to me.

Not enough variety....


http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2009/02/26/a-white-house-watermelon-patch-how-the-hell-is-that-funny/

Posts like this just make it clear that they're reaching for straws. People will bitch and complain about anything......While legitimate concerns about some of Obama's policies do exist, much of it gets drowned out by the noise of pissing and moaning over because "he says ummm too much".

Not pissing or moaning, just said I wasn't impressed. If he's as sharp as you say he is you'd think he could put two sentences together a little quicker.

Not pissing or moaning, just said I wasn't impressed. If he's as sharp as you say he is you'd think he could put two sentences together a little quicker.

Sounds like you're asserting you believe you're smarter and more articulate?

-spence

Sounds like you're asserting you believe you're smarter and more articulate?

Yeah, that's it, I think I'm smarter than the President :tm:

Yeah, that's it, I think I'm smarter than the President :tm:

Well, you seem to believe you have the credentials to make an informed judgment.

-spence

Sounds like you're asserting you believe you're smarter and more articulate?

-spence

I know your smarter and more articulate. :wave:

I know your smarter and more articulate. :wave:

And deliver the executive value message :err: :bshake:

And deliver the executive value message :err: :bshake:

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

-spence

Well, you seem to believe you have the credentials to make an informed judgment.

-spence

Hell. I think my dog Max is smarter than Mr Obama.
I think Mr. Teleprompter may be smarter than Max though.

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

-spence

:rotf2:

I think Mr. Teleprompter may be smarter than Max though.

Your ignorance is amazing.

Your ignorance is amazing.

I don't even think it's ignorance, it's too petty.

One may not agree with Obama's politics, but to think he's not a very bright person is either just stupid. The "teleprompter" remarks are equally stupid...

Have you noticed how nobody every makes a well reasoned critique about what Obama actually says when he's not speaking from a teleprompter? All they can do is poke fun of him for not being on one...

Thank goodness he doesn't have a bad studder, the comments would be heartless.

Lame.

-spence

Well, you seem to believe you have the credentials to make an informed judgment.

Are you serious? Exactly what "credentials" do I need to have an opinion that I was not impressed by the President's speaking ability? I don't see the need to go into a three paragraph dissertation to support this. Typical Spence response to insult the intelligence of anybody that has a differing opinion.

That being said, for the record, I believe he is very bright, just not very impressive when he speaks. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

By the way, it's "stutter" not "studder"

Are you serious? Exactly what "credentials" do I need to have an opinion that I was not impressed by the President's speaking ability? I don't see the need to go into a three paragraph dissertation to support this. Typical Spence response to insult the intelligence of anybody that has a differing opinion.

To make a remark like "If he's as sharp as you say he is you'd think he could put two sentences together a little quicker" clearly seems to indicate you don't feel he reaches your own personal standards for intellect.

As for insulting the intelligence of someone with a differing opinion, that's just nonsense. The issue is that the basis for the remarks about Obama have little to do with his real intelligence.

If you watched his press conference I'd think you'd have some substantial critique
of his responses and perhaps praise or contempt for his policy.

Instead there's just petty.

JohnnyD called this one right.

-spence

hes a better speaker than the last sucker to have that job... :hihi:

Your ignorance is amazing.

I'm sorry, :rotflmao:

That entire post about my dog being smarter than Obama was just my way of poking a hornets nest with a stick :hee:

hes a better speaker than the last sucker to have that job... :hihi:

Yes, that is true, but when Bush spoke, I feel it came more from his heartfelt beliefs (even if you think they were misguided). He made so many mistakes speaking, because he did speak a lot from his feelings without the benefit of utilizing the brain. I thought he was one of those guys, like a 1/2 educated farmer, that would do anything to provide for his family and country. I saw him speak twice at the Naval War College while on active duty and during the question and answers after his speeches, he showed me that he was very patriotic, had a deep love for this country, and would do just about anything to protect this land.

I have yet to see Obama speak besides on tv, so I havent been able to get a real feel for him. From the speeches I have seen, it seems like I'm listening to a lawyer, very well chosen words, and sometimes his words don't seem to be reflected in his eyes. Eerily, reminds me of my days as a cop, when guys would tell the suspect that they were trying to help him, by getting all of the facts or he wasn't your main target (to get more info), when all you really wanted was to get that punk behind bars. When he says something I feel that he means something slightly or completely different. Not trying to be anti Obama, but I can't seem to trust him. I feel like he as good as Clinton at telling lies.

Yes, that is true, but when Bush spoke, I feel it came more from his heartfelt beliefs (even if you think they were misguided).

In one sentence, you have completely explained why Bush was the biggest failure of a president.

Being a business owner, I see running a government as not much unlike running a business. Every decision needs to be precisely calculated to produce the most optimal results. Every action or policy put into place must produce the maximum benefit to, not only the company, but also the customer. This is where Bush failed.

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.
Or worse, the heartfelt beliefs of those around him.

Example.

Bush (protect the American people) + Advisers (democratize the Middle East) = Policy (protect the American people by democratizing the Middle Ease)

I think Bush came across as genuine for many because he believed most of what he was saying. He did though appear to lack the intellectual curiosity to dive into issues and explore the various facets. He was more apt to simply take things for what they appeared to be (or was told) and if he felt he was making the right decision he would be clear with this choice.

This works fine when everything is rosy, but I think proven to be dramatically insufficient when dealing with the complex problems that he was presented with. The world isn't black and white but they tried to make it out to be so as to be easier for the American people to swallow.

-spence

In one sentence, you have completely explained why Bush was the biggest failure of a president.

Being a business owner, I see running a government as not much unlike running a business. Every decision needs to be precisely calculated to produce the most optimal results. Every action or policy put into place must produce the maximum benefit to, not only the company, but also the customer. This is where Bush failed.

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.

This raises the question...What the hell makes you think Obama won't fail? He should be poised to be the worst President ever by your logic.

And I agree 100% with your statement.

This raises the question...What the hell makes you think Obama won't fail? He should be poised to be the worst President ever by your logic.
Not necessarily.

Take health care for instance. It's perhaps our biggest challenge and yet one where there's an abundance of cash flow. If I was a business person I'd treat the systemic issues with strategic solutions.

For instance we may be able to dramatically reduce costs through early detection, or achieve economies of scale by consolidating services. These solutions have proven difficult if not impossible to deploy with a hybrid free market system. Hell, we don't even let the Government negotiate discount rates for pharmaceuticals!

The counter argument of course is that it could limit choice, or create socialistic entitlements. But these are ideological issues that ignore a potential net gain to the system, and that could be a better use of the same taxpayer money.

A business person would ignore ideology at first and look for innovative solutions to the big problems, then use their ideology as guiding principals to stress test the actual solutions.

-spence

Not necessarily.

Take health care for instance. It's perhaps our biggest challenge and yet one where there's an abundance of cash flow. If I was a business person I'd treat the systemic issues with strategic solutions.

For instance we may be able to dramatically reduce costs through early detection, or achieve economies of scale by consolidating services. These solutions have proven difficult if not impossible to deploy with a hybrid free market system. Hell, we don't even let the Government negotiate discount rates for pharmaceuticals!

The counter argument of course is that it could limit choice, or create socialistic entitlements. But these are ideological issues that ignore a potential net gain to the system, and that could be a better use of the same taxpayer money.

A business person would ignore ideology at first and look for innovative solutions to the big problems, then use their ideology as guiding principals to stress test the actual solutions.

-spence

As long as the President, his wife and children have the same health insurance I get. No exceptions, otherwise I like my freedom to choose for my own children.

As long as the President, his wife and children have the same health insurance I get. No exceptions, otherwise I like my freedom to choose for my own children.

That's a good way to look at it. I'm not for a pure single payer system, but I also don't think what we have now is workable either. I think there's a solution where we have a limited single payer system to provide base coverage and people or companies can upgrade somewhat like they do with Medicare today.

The American people also need to stop subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. We're the only industrialized nation who allows price fixing.

-spence

That's a good way to look at it. I'm not for a pure single payer system, but I also don't think what we have now is workable either. I think there's a solution where we have a limited single payer system to provide base coverage and people or companies can upgrade somewhat like they do with Medicare today.

The American people also need to stop subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. We're the only industrialized nation who allows price fixing.

-spence

Well Medicare is going bankrupt too. I would feel a little better if the Feds had just one program that had succeeded in it's intended purpose. This bunch that's in charge now, can't do anything right. Spend, spend, spend....

It will be very tough to make nationalized health care work. One possibility would be to do like the military, your initial visit would be to a nurse (corpsman) who would evaluate and treat you for minor issues and then refer you up to actual doctors for more serious things. This would make routine visits much cheaper as they could pay considerably less for the nurse compared to a doctor. Wait times would definately increase, just like all government services (DMV, DEM, of Post Office). It is doable, I lived in Japan for 8 years and wife received National insurance from Japan and payed a 500 yen ($5.00) co-pay each visit. It seemed to be pretty efficient. All employers are required to pay for health insurance and if not employed you are required to sign up for national insurance (it was pretty cheap).

just a few leftist thoughts from a right leaning guy.......

If we can use the good from both sides without bringing the garbage from both sides, this country could possibly pull this off. I don't hold out much faith in our system though,,, it will end up with a hundred or more added earmarks for various senators from both parties.

Well Medicare is going bankrupt too. I would feel a little better if the Feds had just one program that had succeeded in it's intended purpose. This bunch that's in charge now, can't do anything right. Spend, spend, spend....

I don't think Medicare is by any means perfect, and as for a program, believe it or not Social Security isn't all that terrible and had the Government not raided the SS funds to pay for other bills it wouldn't be nearly the issue that it is.

-spence

One possibility would be to do like the military, your initial visit would be to a nurse (corpsman) who would evaluate and treat you for minor issues and then refer you up to actual doctors for more serious things. This would make routine visits much cheaper as they could pay considerably less for the nurse compared to a doctor. Wait times would definately increase, just like all government services (DMV, DEM, of Post Office).
A lot of hospitals already employ this regardless of your insurance. I've been to Charlton in Fall River several times and they always do this at the walk in.

Ultimately it doesn't make things cheaper for me, but I would note that they run a very efficient business and have excellent turn around time for minor issues, even with x-rays.

In the end it probably has more to do with great management.

-spence