That's how it ended on my TV. I watched the hard drive recording and hadn't taken the precaution of adding extra minutes in case it ran overtime.
September 9, 2009
Obama ended his big speech with an adorable kissy face.
That's how it ended on my TV. I watched the hard drive recording and hadn't taken the precaution of adding extra minutes in case it ran overtime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
72 comments:
Obama looked swept away by his own rhetorical brilliance.
I'm Obama fatigued, all Obamout ;)
He's saying "I love you America. Except for Republicans, of course. BOOOSH!"
That is some swell used car that he assures us runs perfectly, but no test drives or inspections are to be allowed or that will hurt the salesman's feelings. And especially no more free speech like a British Parlement Question will allowed where a member calls the Salesman a Liar.
Kinda funny, aina?
The Speaker of the House can call Republicans Nazis, and that's OK.
But calling the President a liar? Why, that's vicious!
The adorableness of that kissy face has caused me to make some spring rolls.
Chip, those look great. What do you use as the "roll"? Is it that Japanese noodle?
WV: retrapho, old-style Vietnamese soup
The Speaker of the House can call Republicans Nazis, and that's OK.
When did Pelosi call any Republican a Nazi? Or do you mean when she correctly noted that townhall protestors carried swastikas?
http://media.photobucket.com/image/town%20hall%20protestors%20nazis/curt757/pelosi.jpg
Please check your facts before posting -- having to defend Pelosi is positively painful.
I'm curious: was Bush ever heckled by a congressman during a speech?
What a bunch of and disgusting creepy people.
Ann included.
You really should be ashamed.
Hold that toke, Barack!!
Looks like Rep. Wilson knows he put his foot in his mouth. Nobody likes a heckler.
McCain: "Totally Disrespectful... He Should Apologize Immediately"
“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”
Too late.
How clever.
Looks like Rep. Wilson knows he put his foot in his mouth. Nobody likes a heckler.
You've obviously never watched the House of Commons on C-Span.
That was sad to see Little Barry Obama being rudely challenged by one of the other 535 persons who rule over us between elections. It was out of place to hear it during a Liberal Religious State Church service held in their version of St Peter's Basilica. That took guts.
Yes, only the President is allowed to call people liars during his speeches.
Surely, since someone apparently yelled something, socialized health care will now become law.
Hilarious that after this latest in a long line of seminal speeches, Obamaphiles wish to talk about this. Just too funny.
I'm assuming that if a democratic congressperson had ever heckled Bush, it would have been mentioned by now.
But I see you're taking the "Why so sensitive?" strategy.
Good work.
I think I'm going to be sick.
I'm assuming that if a democratic congressperson had ever heckled Bush, it would have been mentioned by now.
Assume away.
So if everybody is talking about the heckler and not the actual speech does that help or hurt Obama?
Alternatively both here and on McCardles' blog, the claim is being made that the democrats were booing Obama.
That might work too, if you repeat it often, and loud, enough.
Give it a shot.
A man had the temerity to speak up whilst Teh One™ was speaking?
Take him out!
I notice that a man who is stuffing himself with money (Rangel) is up there for all to admire, but a man speaking back to the president--unheard of.
Interesting what the Obamaphiles focus on. Words, not deeds.
Doesn't your question answer itself, Jayne?
Obama is so trivial at this point that no one even cares what he says any more. It's about what the audience says. He's now The Rocky Horror Picture Show of presidents.
Not rude (or unhinged or obstructionist. . .) but BRAVE!!
A hero even.
I dunno. I'd have to hear it repeated about a thousand times before I could tell you if it would work.
It might.
Shades of the infamous Palin "wink".
fls, even you know that Pelosi's remark about swastikas was purposely or reckless misleading.
Did people have signs with swastikas? Yes.
Were the swastikas a symbol adopted by and for the people carrying them? No.
They were a symbol-statement on what those people think about Obama's governing techniques.
By Pelosi’s logic, the people that burned American flags in revolutionary Iran would be called U.S. patriots because they have the stars and stripes in their hands.
She was stupid.
I hope it isn't positively painful for you to be more precise.
By 2012, Americans will be dying for a boring candidate who does not see a need to talk to us every frigging day. We will just want a president who will do some work, STFU and maybe fix a thing or two in four years.
Of course by then, most of us will be walking around in barrels and suspenders and living in a van down by the river.
So if everybody is talking about the heckler and not the actual speech does that help or hurt Obama?
Neither. Anti-reformers will think his outburst was excusable, and pro-reformers will think he was rude.
Did the GOP pass up a perfectly good opportunity to show that they are reasonable?
Or are we going with "brave"?
"A hero even."
More like a stooge.
Tomorrow the heckler story will likely take focus away from the substance of the speech.
O should send the man a thank you gift, if he hasn't already.
This is a good one too:
The heckler was bad, but only because he distracted from the patently empty verbiage that is a typical Obama speech. . . that we've had too many of anyway.
The only problem is you have to choose between this and the "hero" one.
Tough choise.
Can someone please tell me Phos's point? Or can someone please help this person make one?
Thanks.
phosphorious,
Man you're pushing this harder than Lee did his "hillbillies" label.
I think his point is that it's rude for the Republicans to think they have a choice. They should like back and take it.
The Democrats, on the other hand, can call the opposition Nazis and traitors, and it's happy kissy time.
Forgetting, of course, the man with the golden retirement homes (Rangel) or the man with the sweetheart mortgage (Dodd). I mean, actual corruption is OK, but talking back to Mr. President? That's really bad!
No doubt, Wilson was rude. But that's hardly a reason to pass a flawed bill(s) that will bankrupt our treasury.
Ted Kennedy's unfortunate passing is not a valid reason either.
Let's stick to the issues and pass or sink HC on its merits (or lack thereof.)
I'm tired of the banality of this struggle.
like/sb/lie
If I were a perfectionist I'd just delete it and start over. And over. And over...
I'm sorry the heckler apologized.
Obama was in his house, after all.
If Obama doesn't want to face the people's representatives, he can stay at the other end of Penn. Ave. and watch a movie with the kids.
Yeah, I can see how Teh One™ has the moral high ground here what with him giving people the finger on the sly. Yeppers, that man shouldn't be talked back to.
Here's one you might try:
the very fact that this heckling is unprecedentedly rude (although I assume a democratic precedent is being dug up as we speak) PROVES how brave he is.
No other president has ever NEEDED to be heckled! By god, this Obama must be TERRIBLE!
What is Phos's point?
It'd be a classy move for him to accept the congressman's apology. Or has he already done that?
"It'd be a classy move for him to accept the congressman's apology. Or has he already done that?"
And if he doesn't accept it. . . then the hecklin is retroactively justified!
Fucking brilliant!
I cannot believe you missed this historic stealth care speech. It gave me goose bumps.
In the middle of it, Joe Biden grabbed his large brown envelope (containing a copy of the speech, presumably?) to scrawl out a note (to the bailiff, to silence the heckler, presumably?).
See? See what you missed? We were waiting for your illumination.
And if he doesn't accept it. . . then the hecklin is retroactively justified!
You're assuming that hecklers need some justification beyond disliking the speaker. This is an incorrect assumption.
"You're assuming that hecklers need some justification beyond disliking the speaker. This is an incorrect assumption."
When the heckler is a congressperson. . . doesan't there need to be some justification for the breach of collegility?
Or is Obama so beyond the pale that all bets are off?
To clarify the situation: Townhall protestors referred to Obama as Hitler and universal health care as Naziism.
Lessee - Bush is war criminal, and Obama is a liar.
Which is more brutal?
Nazism: National Socialism. A little extreme, but not entirely inaccurate. (Especially note Obama's repeated references to students' responsibility to country.)
"Lessee - Bush is war criminal, and Obama is a liar.
Which is more brutal?"
More brutal to be. . . or to be called?
When the heckler is a congressperson. . . doesan't there need to be some justification for the breach of collegility?
I'm sorry. It sounded like you said that heckling the man who had just finished calling his opponents liars was a breach of collegility. Did I misread you? :)
"I'm sorry. It sounded like you said that heckling the man who had just finished calling his opponents liars was a breach of collegility. Did I misread you? :)"
You read me correctly. Obama pointed out a specific thing that was said, and without naming names, claimed that it was a lie.
He didn't shout out a term of abuse during a joint session of congress.
He didn't shout out a term of abuse during a joint session of congress.
He repeatedly used that term of abuse during a joint session of Congress. So it would appear your only real complaint here is that Wilson spoke in a louder voice than Obama did?
Petty and boring, phos. You'll have to do better than that if you expect people to care.
"Petty and boring, phos. You'll have to do better than that if you expect people to care."
Right. . . because you don't care. You're alla bout. . . republicans as a whole are all about the substance. The policy.
And Obama did it first, so you're in the clear.
Good job.
A question thouhg: back when you thought it was democrats booing Obama. . . what did you think?
"Outrageously rude!" I bet.
This is a general question; anyone may answer.
Miller, it's rice wrapper made for spring rolls. It's a Vietnamese thing, possibly Cambodian.
But wait! Are you telling me Joe Wilson shouted "Liar!" during Obama's speech? Damn. Missed that. Now I'm a little bit sorry I had the thing on mute.
"But wait! Are you telling me Joe Wilson shouted "Liar!" during Obama's speech? Damn. Missed that. Now I'm a little bit sorry I had the thing on mute."
You missed the birth of a genuine new folk hero?
You poor sap.
phosphorious -- is that really Mark Levin again, trying to make us believe this is a real Democrat? Because it's not working.
Teh One™ calls his opponents liars and they're supposed to sit there and BE QUIET.
And some guy doesn't.
And THAT is all the talk is about the speech. Not the substance of the speech. But that someone interrupted Teh One™
You really are not making your "side" look better.
That's why I think you're a false flag operation.
Now I'm a little bit sorry I had the thing on mute.
I'm left scratching my head, pondering the attraction of watching a Presidential speech on mute.
Wasn't there a "Boston Legal" rerun on somewhere? Baseball game? Infomercial?
I would posit that about half of the leftists here have been accused, at one point or another, of being clever conservatives.
Conclusion: Either there are too many clever conservatives, or there are a lot of inferior leftists here.
And, by the way, there are a lot of great leftists. But Beth and Peter Hoh are usually too busy being funny.
"You really are not making your "side" look better. "
I'm merely here to offer advice. . . some of which has been taken!
The story now is that Wilson acted heroically by breaking decorum to call the president a liar during a joint session of congress. . . because Obama acted so scurrilously by calling his opponents liars.
Plus, someone called Bush a "loser".
The upshot being that the GOP is not in the hands of petty, partisan hacks, but genuine folk heroes who dare to speak truth to power. And sober policy experts.
We are watching reality as it is constructed, and I am proud to lend my humble services.
Beth is one of the most consistent and cogent leftists. She for the most part avoids name-calling. She's snarky, but then, so am I.
I know this is giving away the company secrets, but really, some of these leftists need to read "How to Win Arguments."
Calling people names such as "poopy-head" really doesn't win the argument. As Margaret Thatcher (she of blessed memory) once said, "I'm glad when my opponents start calling me names, because it means I've won."
So feel free to fall to the ad hominem attack. It's entertaining and diverting, but (here's the secret) it does not really advance your point.
WV: foopundi, someone who is the voice of sanity in the coder's realm.
Plus, someone called Bush a "loser".
You can’t write if you can’t relate
Trade the cash for the beef for the body for the hate
And my time is a piece of wax fallin’ on a termite
who's chokin’ on the splinters
Soy un perdedor
I’m a loser baby, so why don’t you kill me?
I'm confused. . . Obama called a particular proposition (that there would be death panels) a lie.
That is precisely NOT an ad hominem attack. . . it attacks a proposition, not a person.
Wilson shouts out "Liar!". . . attacking a person, not a statement.
And the GOP congratulates itself on its manners and rationality.
Do i have this correct?
phospho: think. To have a lie, you must have a liar. Without a liar, you merely have a false statement.
"phospho: think. To have a lie, you must have a liar. Without a liar, you merely have a false statement."
Yes, yes. . . but the difference between the fallacy and the argument is that one specifically addresses the claim, without casting aspersions on the claimer.
Whereas a shout of "Liar!" is simply an insult. . . unless Joe was cut off before he was able to provide all of his evidence?
Stupid democrats. . . cutting off a man mid-argument. they just hate the truth, don't they?
Sorry I wasn't more clear. I forget that not everyone is familiar with the posters here.
It's not whether Wilson shouted out Liar. It's people commenting on this blog who resort to simple name-calling (and usually accompanied by the phrase "whining and bitching") who are evidently losing the argument.
Of course, I think Wilson's statement was rude, because he stated an opinion in the middle of a speech. I'm not sure if it would technically be ad hominem because he wasn't in an argument or conversation; it was more an interjection.
And, of course, it was a brilliant if unplanned tactical move to shift the attention from what the president said to what others say about the factual basis of the speech. It might even be part of a larger strategy, if the Republicans can be thought of to hold to strategic thinking.
Quote of the speech, ``My door is always open.''
Suppress those interpretations.
Someone asked if Bush had ever been heckled -- watch vid of the 2005 SoU address to catch the same Dems currently wailing and hissyfitting about Wilson as they boo and boo and catcall and boo some more. Dems have very short, and very convenient memories.
Post a Comment