Posted on 01/28/2011 2:59:51 AM PST by markomalley
The president is to report on the state of the union. In this age of high tech, we have a great opportunity to communicate via graphics, sound, tech gadgetry, etc.
Instead we’re treated to a talking head who doesn’t say anything about the state of the union other than, normally, “the state of the union is sound” or some such blurb.
Can you imagine the CEO of a major corporation settling for that kind of report when he asked for a “state of your division” report? “Hi, boss, things are wunnerful, and here’s where we’re gonna spend more of your money...and btw I hate the heads of the other divisions who all suck big time.”
I don't disagree, but her "speech" was boring and uninspiring, just like Obama's and Ryan's. Most speeches are dull and uninspiring, especially when they are read from teleprompters.
How can we criticize Obama for using a teleprompter when we march out our own people to counter his speech and promptly have them use teleprompters. If you don't know your subject well enough to speak from outline notes written on your hand, then you have no business boring your audience with whatever it is you have to say.
When people read their speeches, then I have to assume that someone else wrote them.
I saw a distinct lack of fire in the belly from all three speakers.
We criticize Obama because behind his teleprompter (other than a tyrannical movement) is nothing but thin air.
You need to understand this. Conservatives don’t criticize him for the teleprompter. It’s about the fact that the teleprompter symbolizes the empty promises of socialism.
Bachmann understands the need to reassert our liberties under the Constitution. All politicians use teleprompters.
If you’re able and unafraid to articulate what it is about the Constitution you don’t like, go ahead.
Well for what its worth I'm not particularly fond of the the 16th, 17th, 22nd, 23rd and 26th Amendments. I think we could do better without any of those.
Can I ask you a question about your screen name?
Reason is Faith?
Is that a truism? Because, as you know, most truisms are false.
Spiritual Faith is not reason and reason is not faith. Although they are compatible and not contradictory, I don't see how their parallel lines ever intersect.
Faith is in itself a miracle, and by nature miracles are not subject to temporal reason. Faith in Christ, is not something we reason out for ourselves, it is a Gift from God. A fallen man can reason, but without the prompting of God (a supernatural event) no man can come to faith.
Now men may reason a faith in their brakes when driving their cars, knowing that the odds of a brake failure are so insignificant that they do not warrant an irrational fear of driving 75 miles an hour, but that is not a spiritual faith. That is a reasonable conclusion based on statistics and experience. It certainly isn't the kind of substance of things hoped for or evidence of things unseen that we equate with our Spiritual Faith.
Anyhows, what exactly do you mean when you say "reason is faith"? Thanks.
Ryan was glued to his teleprompter. It would have been fun to have the electricity on it fry to see if he even knew what he was saying. Happened to me a few weeks back. I'm in the pulpit and....omigosh...sermon notes are on the desk back at the house. Suffice to say that it worked just fine, all points hit. Public speaking requires a road map in your head and not on your page.
Bachman was a bit better, but did you watch her point to her prompts but keep her eyes on her teleprompter? I know it's bad form to turn your head on your audience in some circles, but there's also a stiffness and unnaturalness about not looking at the details you're pointing to. You turn, you look, you turn back and (smile/frown/raise and eyebrow). She, too, was a teleprompter mama.
Obama's teleprompter must look like a Hemingway (short sentences) rough draft. Have you ever noticed Obama speaks in short bursts? Have you ever heard a preacher who was a breather? And I'm gonna tell you, uhhhhhh That the Lord is gonna call you, uhhhhhhhh And he'll call by name, uhhhhhh The name that He knew from eternity. And I'll tell ya some more, uhhhhh And the Lord will tell ya, too, uhhhhhh He'll tell you that you're lost, uhhhhhh As lost as can be. etc., etc. Obama's teleprompter probably looks like that...one short line at a time. That way he can pump his fist, or smile, or laugh, or turn his head. From Ryan they got this sentence: ***We believe government's role is both vital and limited, to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense, to secure our borders, to protect innocent life, to uphold our laws and constitutional rights, to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity, and to provide a safety net -- to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.***
Wow, I didn't know we established a Constitutional Theocracy. Safety nets are the responsibility of the Church and the local communities, not the Federal Government. Ryan is the best we got?
Equal rights does not mean "equal opportunities." Nobody has an "equal opportunity" at anything, ever.
Pretty people and smart people and hard working people will have a natural advantage over ugly, stupid and lazy people. In order to have "equal opportunity" you have to punish the good looking, smart and hard working people to bring them all down to the level of the ugly, stupid and lazy people. We are a nation of individuals.
We are not "equal" nor should we be. We are all dealt a hand and we have to deal with it. Guaranteeing "equal opportunity to all" simply means that the Government is going to be dealing out the hands... from the bottom of the deck.
The “safety net” has become so extensive that it is a lifestyle. The paper today contained information on income levels to have the gov’t pay your heating bills.
You get food, rent, utilities, healthcare, and walking around money via welfare, food stamp, healthcare, and subsidy programs.
When your safety net is so extensive that it funds a lifestyle, then you have created a culture of dependence. Why would anyone struggle to make it other than through personal pride?
Joe Walsh didn't take long to become part of the Washington establishment. When are they going to learn to ignore the friggin media?
It will be necessary for the Demos to have a split party too if there is any Repub fracture.
It will be necessary for the Demos to have a split party too if there is any Repub fracture.
To say that reason is faith is to reconcile the two in the most complete way.
Now back to the Constitution, if you please. I’m talking fundamentals, not particular amendments. The most important thing about the Constitution is it establishes the direction of power flow: God—>people—>government.
This directionality is what the ruling class oppose. To succumb to the temptations of Washington always, without exception, positions a politician against the vector of liberty.
The vector of liberty is our battleground.
We’re fighting for liberty. Bachmann understands this and proceeds accordingly. Ryan understands it also, but sometimes it seems like he’s got one foot slipping toward the quicksand of political corruption, otherwise known as political correctness.
Either that, or he’s part of the odd circumstance in contemporary politics which seems to deny male politicians their rightful portion of testosterone while somehow slipping it daily into their female counterparts’ morning coffee.
What do you think is the best way to tell if a politician means what they say?
Can this be measured, at least partly, by the extent to which they leave political correctness out of their public comments?
Her speech was boring.
Ryan understands it also,
Really? What's all that nonsense about the Federal Government's purpose is to "to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity, and to provide a safety net -- to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves."????????
Spoken like a true dyed in the wool progressive!
His speech was boring too.
Amen and amen!
Not only is that the way the report to Congress was originally handled, but let's think for a moment.
The media knows what he's gonna say, because they'll report before the SOTU: "The president will say 'blah, blah, blah.'" In other words, they know because they've had a transcript released to them.
And the members of his party, if not both parties, know what he's going to say for the same reason.
IOW, he IS sending them a report in writing, already. And they tell us before the event what he'll say. And then they release the transcript afterwards.
The only reason for this current method is to have a public dog and pony show in the media.
They've been using it to talk over national news all week long. What do I mean?
The worst unemployment news since the beginning of Obama's term came out this past week. The worst housing news since the beginning of Obama's term came out this past week.
I'm sure they weren't trying to shove that to the side. /sarc
In the sense that Obozo did not report to Congress about the bad news about unemployment, the massive deficit, the inevitable devaluing of the currency, the morale of the military, the stalemate in the Afghan war..... He effectively did not carry out his Constitutional duty to report to Congress on the state of the Union.
His speech was nothing more than a campaign stop.
WTF does “Winning the Future” have to do with the SOTU????
Exactly. Any president saying everything is fine and dandy with those problems is a congenital liar.
Bottom line: Michelle Bachmann understands the meaning of liberty and she is fighting against progressivism to maintain the strength and the power of our Constitution.
I can’t imagine how this historical fight can be boring, unless to minds developed by playing electronic video games or 12 hours of daily television. Though oddly it seems this wouldn’t apply to you.
Bachmann faces unprecedented political pressure, yet she goes on. The struggle between natural liberty and insidious oppression is the battle of history, present in different colors and flavors throughout time.
Bachmann has the courage to say on national television there are anti-Americans in Congress. The statement is true—who can refute it? Given this fact, we can conclude that the only appropriate response should be an echoing of Bachmann’s posture by any and all members of Congress (and by we the who care to stand up for our country. Her determination must be very intense, to keep going like she does.
When Bachmann gives a speech, I for one will give her my full attention. Like my life depends on it.
There are millions of people who share that goal. OTOH, her speech was boring and listless.
The bottom line is that Obama had no business giving his WTF speech, and Ryan and Bachmann failed in their attempts to show what a stupid speech it was.
Palin, OTOH, hit the nail on the head when she referred to Obama's "Winning the Future" speech as Obama's "WTF moment." That acronym is going to permanently hang over Obama's head like a giant albatross.
What did Bachmann or Ryan say that will make that kind of impact?
The answer... Nothing. They just gave placid boring policy wonk statements, "full of words and music and signifying... nothing."
Where is the fire?
Who was the first to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare?
Which politician is calling for a repeal of Dodd-Frank financial nightmare?
We don’t need an actress. We need Bachmann.
I’d take either her or Palin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.