or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 99

post #1471 of 3276

Sniff sniff

post #1472 of 3276
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

Sniff sniff

Thumb sniffer.
post #1473 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


That's a really, really stupid post.

 

You don't think O saw the Olympics bid as a personal referendum on his Godliness?

 

The Obamas' Ego Trip to Copenhagen

 
 
 
By George F. Will
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

 

In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

 

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

 

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

 

In 2008, Obama carried the three congressional districts that contain Northern California's Silicon Valley with 73.1, 69.6 and 68.4 percent of the vote. Surely the Valley could continue its service to him by designing software for his speechwriters' computers that would delete those personal pronouns, replacing them with the word "sauerkraut" to underscore the antic nature of their excessive appearances.

 

And -- this will be trickier -- the software should delete the most egregious cliches sprinkled around by the tin-eared employees in the White House speechwriting shop. The president told the Olympic committee that: "At this defining moment," a moment "when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations" in "this ever-shrinking world," he aspires to "forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world."

 

Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared "defining" -- declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it. Also, enough already with the "shrinking" world, which has been so described at least since Magellan set sail, and probably before that. And by the way, the "fate" of -- to pick a nation at random -- Chile is not really in any meaningful sense "inextricably linked" to that of, say, Chad.

 

But meaningful sense is often absent from the gaseous rhetoric that makes it past White House editors -- are there any? -- and onto the president's teleprompter. Consider one recent example:

 

Nine days before speaking in Copenhagen, the president, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, intoned: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." What was the speechwriter thinking when he or she assembled that sentence? The "should" was empty moralizing; the "can" was nonsense redundantly refuted by history. Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?

 

Becoming solemn in Copenhagen, Obama said: "No one expects the Games to solve all our collective problems." That's right, no one does. So why say that? Then, shifting into the foggy sentimentalism of standard Olympics blather, he said "peaceful competition between nations represents what's best about our humanity" and "it brings us together" and "it helps us to understand one another."

 

Actually, sometimes the Olympic Games are a net subtraction from international comity. But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:

"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather . . ."

 

It was gallant of the president to say to the Olympic committee that Michelle is "a pretty big selling point for the city." Gallant, but obviously untrue. And -- this is where we pass from the merely silly to the ominous -- suppose the president was being not gallant but sincere. Perhaps the premise of the otherwise inexplicable trip to Denmark was that there is no difficulty, foreign or domestic, that cannot be melted by the sunshine of the Obama persona. But in the contest between the world and any president's charm, bet on the world.

 

Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."

post #1474 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

You don't think O saw the Olympics bid as a personal referendum on his Godliness?


The Obamas' Ego Trip to Copenhagen



 
 

 


By George F. Will
Tuesday, October 6, 2009


In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

In 2008, Obama carried the three congressional districts that contain Northern California's Silicon Valley with 73.1, 69.6 and 68.4 percent of the vote. Surely the Valley could continue its service to him by designing software for his speechwriters' computers that would delete those personal pronouns, replacing them with the word "sauerkraut" to underscore the antic nature of their excessive appearances.

And -- this will be trickier -- the software should delete the most egregious cliches sprinkled around by the tin-eared employees in the White House speechwriting shop. The president told the Olympic committee that: "At this defining moment," a moment "when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations" in "this ever-shrinking world," he aspires to "forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world."

Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared "defining" -- declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it. Also, enough already with the "shrinking" world, which has been so described at least since Magellan set sail, and probably before that. And by the way, the "fate" of -- to pick a nation at random -- Chile is not really in any meaningful sense "inextricably linked" to that of, say, Chad.

But meaningful sense is often absent from the gaseous rhetoric that makes it past White House editors -- are there any? -- and onto the president's teleprompter. Consider one recent example:

Nine days before speaking in Copenhagen, the president, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, intoned: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." What was the speechwriter thinking when he or she assembled that sentence? The "should" was empty moralizing; the "can" was nonsense redundantly refuted by history. Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?

Becoming solemn in Copenhagen, Obama said: "No one expects the Games to solve all our collective problems." That's right, no one does. So why say that? Then, shifting into the foggy sentimentalism of standard Olympics blather, he said "peaceful competition between nations represents what's best about our humanity" and "it brings us together" and "it helps us to understand one another."

Actually, sometimes the Olympic Games are a net subtraction from international comity. But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:
"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather . . ."

It was gallant of the president to say to the Olympic committee that Michelle is "a pretty big selling point for the city." Gallant, but obviously untrue. And -- this is where we pass from the merely silly to the ominous -- suppose the president was being not gallant but sincere. Perhaps the premise of the otherwise inexplicable trip to Denmark was that there is no difficulty, foreign or domestic, that cannot be melted by the sunshine of the Obama persona. But in the contest between the world and any president's charm, bet on the world.

Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."

No, probably not.
post #1475 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

Sniff sniff

Thumb sniffer.


Quite obviously

post #1476 of 3276

I like how Greece is more favorable of China than the US. 

post #1477 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I like how Greece is more favorable of China than the US. 

It looks like China has been investing heavily in Greece. They own the biggest port in Greece, have been pouring money into infrastructure. The Chinese PM even visited Greece.
post #1478 of 3276
I have already forgotten about that Chicago bid and his trip. That was a riot. With freshly baked Nobel prize he thought the skies are shit and there is no limit to his charmz.
But hey Pew research shows us that despite World being deranged and largely destroyed during the last 8 years, he remains to be very popular with Europeans even despite Arabs streaming into theri cities thanks to Obama ME policies.
It is amazing ,simply amazing. I have watched JWB train wreck with disbelief thinking no one can do worse than that brainless WASP, & here comes the American idol himself and proves me wrong.
post #1479 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


It looks like China has been investing heavily in Greece. They own the biggest port in Greece, have been pouring money into infrastructure. The Chinese PM even visited Greece.

 

It was just an amusing anomaly.  Greece will love anyone who will let their gravy train (retire at 35) run a little longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

I have already forgotten about that Chicago bid and his trip. That was a riot. With freshly baked Nobel prize he thought the skies are shit and there is no limit to his charmz.
But hey Pew research shows us that despite World being deranged and largely destroyed during the last 8 years, he remains to be very popular with Europeans even despite Arabs streaming into theri cities thanks to Obama ME policies.
It is amazing ,simply amazing. I have watched JWB train wreck with disbelief thinking no one can do worse than that brainless WASP, & here comes the American idol himself and proves me wrong.


Who's JWB?

post #1480 of 3276
This vaccine thing is a little silly...

Sure the information wasn't easily available or widely known to anyone besides experts...but presidential candidates (and sitting senators) have access to all sorts of experts.

It is almost certain they had some expert tell them "this whole vaccine thing is bullshit".

Five minutes later, some political expert told them "This whole vaccine thing is bullshit...but only the experts actually know that while a large number of potential voters out there have no idea and think there's a chance it is true"

Seems pretty clear that in 2008 you weren't really going to lose votes by saying things like "well, maybe we should do some more research"--as long as you didn't actually stand for stopping vaccination programs, the pro vaccine voters aren't going to run away from you the way the anti-vaccine voters would flee if you told them "I'm going to force everyone to get vaccinated, you're all idiots".

Either the candidates were pandering, or they failed to make use of experts when making policy decisions on issues they have no personal knowledge of...I'm gonna guess the former is more likely.
post #1481 of 3276
Please tell me this has been posted already. lol8[1].gif

17 Pictures Of Bill Clinton Realizing That Balloons Exist
post #1482 of 3276

If you ever spent New Years Eve at Winterland with the Dead and a head full of acid you would understand

post #1483 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

This vaccine thing is a little silly...

Sure the information wasn't easily available or widely known to anyone besides experts...but presidential candidates (and sitting senators) have access to all sorts of experts.

It is almost certain they had some expert tell them "this whole vaccine thing is bullshit".

Five minutes later, some political expert told them "This whole vaccine thing is bullshit...but only the experts actually know that while a large number of potential voters out there have no idea and think there's a chance it is true"

Seems pretty clear that in 2008 you weren't really going to lose votes by saying things like "well, maybe we should do some more research"--as long as you didn't actually stand for stopping vaccination programs, the pro vaccine voters aren't going to run away from you the way the anti-vaccine voters would flee if you told them "I'm going to force everyone to get vaccinated, you're all idiots".

Either the candidates were pandering, or they failed to make use of experts when making policy decisions on issues they have no personal knowledge of...I'm gonna guess the former is more likely.

Yeah, I have to agree with you and Piob on this. Even if the original statements were made out of ignorance, some adviser would have quickly corrected them as it's too important of a health issue to let it slide.
post #1484 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Please tell me this has been posted already. lol8[1].gif

17 Pictures Of Bill Clinton Realizing That Balloons Exist

Reading the comments under this confirms that Hell is other people.
I think Bill might be exhibiting early signs of Alzheimer.
post #1485 of 3276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Yeah, because that's what I said. rolleyes.gif

And of course your view is much more complex and immune to sarcasm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS