I nearly titled this "Sign-carrying Protesters Narrowly Avoid Arrest at Obama Townhall".

Compare to McCain's reation to a sign carrying librarian.

The best part is near the end, you can see one of the guys start to hold the sign up again, and his friend (who held up part of the sign earlier) yanks it out of his hand.

DFT is right, it wasn't his friend, it was someone else who took the sign away.

For being put on the spot like that, I think Obama responded well. It is many times better to see a discussion unfold instead of having those guys simply walked out of the building as I've seen too many times with the McCain campaign =|

"i may not have responded as you would have liked me to respond" -- i think that statement definitely resonated with me

Love it. If you look closely, it's not actually the guys friend who yanks the sign down at the end. It's actually the guy in the dark suit directly in front of the friend.

The crowd cheered and chanted at the most ridiculous moments, utterly undermining what he was trying to say.

"... which gives you the option of voting for somebody else ..."

*crowd cheers* (translation - YO GET FUCKED DUDE WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE!)

"... which gives you the option of voting for somebody else ..."

*crowd cheers* (translation - YO GET FUCKED DUDE WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE!)

I didnt see it that way, it was a shot at the wildly unpopular (In that crowd and setting) McCain. Obama is basically saying that no matter how inadequate he may be on these issues, he's lightyears ahead of the alternatives. It was a rhetorical smackdown, thats why they cheered. That being said, it is a sad part of reality that Obama is the only alternative on these issues.

"I... I... I... Hold on a second. The...the...the...the...Hold on a second. Here....here...here... Here's what I'm suggesting. Ah....whe...if.....who....dur...dur...dur.."



What if somebody asked McCain about the White community and what he was going to do to preserve it?

I'm no Obama supporter but I think he came across very well here. He did a good job of keeping it positive.

When the crowd starts yelling "Yes we can!" I initially thought they were yelling "Let's behave!" Such a polite crowd!

Answering directly to your accusers and accepting accountability for his actions is one of the reasons why I think this is one outstanding politician.

Obama impressed me with his genuine attempt at discussion but the crowd's sycophantic applause to every little statement of his nearly undermined the power of the exchange. I just wish the audience would do more thinking and less cheer leading at these town hall meetings.

I had a hard time listening to the audience member talk about how the subprime mortgages were intentionally focused upon the black community. If you want to buy a house, but you and your wife both work at McDonald's, you don't get a home. And if someone offers you a low-rate mortgage on a nice house, even though you both have minimal pay, you don't take that offer. And if you do take that offer, and now your home is being taken away...too bad for you. Another life lesson learned, perhaps?

BUYER BEWARE.

A perfect example of why the man is unfit to lead.

He wastes seven minutes of the crowd's time answering loaded, ignorant questions from sh;t-disturbing "activists", whose sole concern is what they can get for "free" from an Obamarchy.

I'm surprised that no one has said anything about the reporter who couldn't read the sign. He said "black America" -- the sign says "black community."

Bad reporting right in front of us.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
"... which gives you the option of voting for somebody else ..."
crowd cheers (translation - YO GET FUCKED DUDE WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE!)
I didnt see it that way, it was a shot at the wildly unpopular (In that crowd and setting) McCain. Obama is basically saying that no matter how inadequate he may be on these issues, he's lightyears ahead of the alternatives. It was a rhetorical smackdown, thats why they cheered. That being said, it is a sad part of reality that Obama is the only alternative on these issues.


Oh I know that's something along the lines of what Obama meant, but the way the crowd started spontaneously cheering at that one line gave me that impression

q. eloquently asked (albeit misguided) question

a. i-i-i-i-i-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh*applause*-uh-uh-uh-i-er-er-er-wait-er-i-uh*applause*-hold on a minute-i-i-i-er-uh-i*applause*

how is that a discussion, it was a question and stutter?

>> ^thinker247:
I had a hard time listening to the audience member talk about how the subprime mortgages were intentionally focused upon the black community.

Yeah, points for Obama on that. He sounded a little flustered when I originally heard the sound bites (on the radio), but seeing the video and the larger context makes it pretty clear that he's contending with his own supporters as he tries to respond.

Given that accusation especially, I would have said something to the effect of "if the ignorant would read their promissory notes before signing for a loan then maybe we wouldn't have a problem, and if 'the ignorant' includes blacks, then so be it." and obviously, that would have flown like a lead balloon, but it's the truth.

Obama manages to avoid calling him out and instead basically just takes his primary argument away from him politely. Nicely done.

>> ^imstellar28:
q. eloquently asked (albeit misguided) question
a. i-i-i-i-i-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh applause -uh-uh-uh-i-er-er-er-wait-er-i-uh applause -hold on a minute-i-i-i-er-uh-i applause
how is that a discussion, it was a question and stutter?


They kept interrupting him as he was trying to speak, but obama was the only one with a microphone.

I've made bad decisions regarding loans, and now I'm paying dearly for them. But I don't blame anybody but myself. I certainly wouldn't blame the loan officers for preying on white, lower class lazy fucks who should know better but still act on impulse anyway.

It's too bad lead balloons can't fly.

>> ^muddro:
>>^thinker247:
I had a hard time listening to the audience member talk about how the subprime mortgages were intentionally focused upon the black community.
Yeah, points for Obama on that. He sounded a little flustered when I originally heard the sound bites (on the radio), but seeing the video and the larger context makes it pretty clear that he's contending with his own supporters as he tries to respond.
Given that accusation especially, I would have said something to the effect of "if the ignorant would read their promissory notes before signing for a loan then maybe we wouldn't have a problem, and if 'the ignorant' includes blacks, then so be it." and obviously, that would have flown like a lead balloon, but it's the truth.
Obama manages to avoid calling him out and instead basically just takes his primary argument away from him politely. Nicely done.

too much stuttering.

he might sound like a rapper but he can't rap, unless you count the fact that he has already looped his own samples.

i i i i i i was a civil rights lawyer hold on hold on drop tha beat aaiiiight

>> ^MINK:
too much stuttering.
he might sound like a rapper but he can't rap, unless you count the fact that he has already looped his own samples.
i i i i i i was a civil rights lawyer hold on hold on drop tha beat aaiiiight

You try answering such an ignorant question with the utmost diplomacy. Well done Obama. I would have simply said..."You're right, vote for McCain"

Usury and indentured servitude are quite similar.

18th century indentured servitude (abolished): You sign a contract that makes you a slave for X years in exchange for safe passage to America.

21st century usury: You sign a contract that puts you in such massive debt that you are a defacto slave because nearly everything you earn will go to the creditor (or else they can reposess your home and let you starve to death on the street)

Fortunately most states have limits on wage garnishment and debtors can escape by declaring bankruptcy (although Bush has tried to restrict bankruptcy as much as Congress will let him). If they ever tried to completely eliminate the notion of bankruptcy, that could probably be overturned on 13th amendment grounds.

He's not stuttering at all. Try watching the video again. He is being interrupted constantly by the heckler and his supporters. You can't hear them most of the time, because the sound feed is coming from his microphone.

Transcript for the hard of hearing/thinking:

Part 1: how to effectively pause while the audience is interrupting you
thats all right....lets....excuse me....hey.....hold on a second...........(audience chanting)....hold on....hold on everybody...excuse me young man...this is going to be question and answer session.....youll have your chance to answer your question, you dont have to disturb the whole meeting.

Part 2: how to stall while you are thinking of an answer to the question
alright alright, well uh i-i-i-they-uh-well-i-i-i-guess-i-i-i-hold-on-hold a second-everybody-i want everybody to be respectful, thats why were having a town hall meeting, this-this-this is democracy at work, and he-he asked a legitimate question so i want to give him an answer. um, i think you are misinformed about when you say not one time, every issue you spoke of i did speak about

Part 3: how to fabricate an answer to a question off the top of your head
ive been talking about predatory lending for the last two years in th us senate, and worked to pass legislation to prevent it when i was in the state legislature. and i have repeatedly said that many of the uh-uh predatory loans that were made in the mortgage system did target african american latino communities. ive said that repeatedly. number two, gina six. i was the first candidate to get out there and say that this was wrong and we should change it. thats number two, when sean bell got shot i put out a statement immediately saying this is a problem.

Part 4: how to ineffectively cope with your questioner confronting the absurdity of your response, in stutter
so so all all all i all im all all all im im saying im sorry wait wait wait dont start wait wait ho ho ho hold on. dont start dont start shouting back im just answering your question. on on on each of on each of these issues ive spoken out, not i may not have spoken out the way you would have wanted me to speak out, which is which is fine, because no no no i understand, no no look look but but, well well they we well they uh, re-re-re-remember i have other people so im just trying to answer your question.

Part 5: how to make excuses for your answer, in stutter
so so all all all i so uh all i uh ho ho ho ho hold on dont dont dont start shouting back im just answering your question on on on-on each of on each of these issues....i have spoken out, now i may not have spoken out the way you would have wanted me to speak out, which is which is fine, because i, no i understand, no, but but, uh , which is fine, well uh uh, well uh uh they well uh hold on a second, re-re-re-remember well ive got other people.

Part 6: how to deflect attention from your ridiculous response, while trying to establish false credibility through past actions, in stutter
heres what im suggesting is, is that on each of these issues that you mention ive spoken out and ive spoken out forcefully, and i-i-i-i-i uh listen i was a civil rights lawyer i-i-i-i-i i have i have passed the first racial profiling legislation in illinois i uh i passed i-i-i-i passed hold on a second i passed some of the-the-the-the toughest death penalty reform legislation in illinois so-so-so these are issues ive worked on on for decades

Part 7: how to assault your questioner, then raise your voice as you proudly recite a feel-good, meaningless, cliched statement to distract your audience from what just happened
now that doesnt mean that im always going to satisfy the way you want these issues framed. which which which uh gives you the option of voting for someone else, it gives you the option to run for office yourself, but, the, those, those are all options, but, but the one thing but the one thing that i think is important the one thing that i think is important, is that, is that we are respectful to towards each other, and what is true, the one thing i believe is that the only way we are going to solve our problems in this country, the only way we are going to solve our problems in this country is if all of us come together black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, young old, disabled, gay, straight that i think has got to be our agenda. alright. okay.

^ You're right, so much better to just have them thrown out, McCain style.

^imstellar28:

Way to make fun of Obama stuttering. That's because the dude who asked the question was yelling and trying to speak over Obama. Obama was courteous enough to let the young man speak but when it was Obama's turn to speak the young man wouldn't shut the fuck up. You making such a big deal out of this shows just how childish and ignorant you are.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A perfect example of why the man is unfit to lead.
He wastes seven minutes of the crowd's time answering loaded, ignorant questions from sh;t-disturbing "activists", whose sole concern is what they can get for "free" from an Obamarchy.


^This is a perfect example of why you're unfit to post.

I just wasted 10 seconds of my life reading your ignorant, asinine comment.

"You making such a big deal out of this shows just how childish and ignorant you are."

The first thing that is going to jump out after watching this video is the massive amount of stuttering present. I am trying to have a rational discussion but several posters are so delusional that they cannot accept the basic premise that Obama was stuttering. How can we move forward when we can't even agree the sky is blue?

There is nothing inherently wrong with stuttering--however, there is something wrong with an inability to effectively answer a question, regardless of its content--and Obama's stuttering betrays this. Several posters in this thread seem to be praising this as a "discussion" yet what did Obama say of merit? He effectively ended the discussion by claiming "you are misinformed." He could have pointed the young man to specific articles or speeches where he spoke not just about, but against these issues (as the young man inquired), or better yet, reiterated them in front of the audience. How could the young man have possibly replied? There is nothing he could argue, Obama provided him with nothing to refute and thus there could be no discussion.

Furthermore, the fact that Obama defended himself by claiming that he has spoken against these issues indicates just how fallacious his own policies are. As well intentioned as the young man was with his question, his argument from a civil rights perspective is misguided--we derive our rights as human beings--not as members of a special interest group.

The young man should broaden his focus to the rights of the "american community" or the "human community" rather than the subset, the "african american community"

thinker247 already said it best:

"I've made bad decisions regarding loans, and now I'm paying dearly for them. But I don't blame anybody but myself. I certainly wouldn't blame the loan officers for preying on white, lower class lazy fucks who should know better but still act on impulse anyway."

Nobody can force you to accept a "predatory" home loan any more than they can make you read a comment on a website. If you chose to "waste" your money, or your life, it is your own choice.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^quantumushroom:
A perfect example of why the man is unfit to lead.
He wastes seven minutes of the crowd's time answering loaded, ignorant questions from sh;t-disturbing "activists", whose sole concern is what they can get for "free" from an Obamarchy.

^This is a perfect example of why you're unfit to post.
I just wasted 10 seconds of my life reading your ignorant, asinine comment.


I would also like to point out, that there is absolutely nothing asinine or ignorant about this comment-in fact it is a very valid argument. The young man's question was exactly as described: loaded and under-researched. Obama should have immediately refuted it with a concise statement and moved on--instead he decided to spend 7 minutes trying to save face with the african american community. I am inclined to agree that a candidate who forgoes rational thought in order to "play politics" is indeed unfit to lead this country...in a positive direction.

>> ^imstellar28:
I would also like to point out, that there is absolutely nothing asinine or ignorant about this comment-in fact it is a very valid argument. The young man's question was exactly as described: loaded and under-researched. Obama should have immediately refuted it with a concise statement and moved on--instead he decided to spend 7 minutes trying to save face with the african american community. I am inclined to agree that a candidate who forgoes rational thought in order to "play politics" is indeed unfit to lead this country...in a positive direction.


Obama is justified in answering a question that a good portion of people may be thinking, using specific examples to make his case. There are a lot of "under-researched" people out there.

There is no rational thought in politics, mate. Only politics.

>> ^imstellar28:
As well intentioned as the young man was with his question, his argument from a civil rights perspective is misguided--we derive our rights as human beings--not as members of a special interest group.


Equal rights do not come automatically to all human beings in society, anywhere in the world. Various races, communities, religions, etc, if in the minority, are often forced onto a lower rung.

Rights are often hard won. It's from the bottom up, humans don't all start equal in the eyes of society. I'm having a hard time believing you don't understand that.

awww poor obama had to answer a retarded question live on camera?

he's running for PRES EEE DENT, you know?

I think answering a question usefully under pressure and without stuttering is one of the job requirements. Fuck, it's a job requirement for working in Burger King ffs.

It's not easy to answer in that situation? Err... yes it is, you just pause, and calmly deliver your answer. you have the microphone. what's the problem. maybe you can't think of anything to say and you are too worried that the people pulling your strings will get upset by your answer so you say something bland and raise a few rounds of applause and get the hell out of there, eh?

by the way, i know some people are retarded and think that criticising Obama is like automatically supporting McCain, but for the record I think they are both unconvincing public speakers and wouldn't vote for either of them, seeing as "public speaking" is about all i want a president to do. but fuck it i live in lithuania. thanks for the F16s.

I think answering a question usefully under pressure and without stuttering is one of the job requirements.

Allow me to introduce you to our current president.

err... i.. i. i.... i.. that's why... you see.... that's.. no hold on a minute... that's what i am trying... now look here.... class... pay attention... settle down please.... now listen... i

thing is if obama was a supply teacher in my old school we would have ripped him a new one and sent him home crying to replan his career.
but if bush was the supply teacher, you know cheyney would be standing behind him, staring at us with the evil eyes, and nobody would misbehave, and bush would hand out free candy and smile, and everything would be ok until the exam, by which time bush would be gone.

>> ^imstellar28:
Furthermore, the fact that Obama defended himself by claiming that he has spoken against these issues indicates just how fallacious his own policies are. As well intentioned as the young man was with his question, his argument from a civil rights perspective is misguided--we derive our rights as human beings--not as members of a special interest group.

Ahh, I see. An African American heckler lays into Obama for not speaking out on African American rights, and Obama says, in effect, "yes I have, just not in the confrontational manner you suggest", and that entirely invalidates him for being President...because he agrees that there are still African American rights issues to be resolved?

Wow.

No wonder all you heard was stuttering.

Upvote just for the 'discussion' going on in thread

Quote:
"There is no rational thought in politics, mate. Only politics."

This is true, if one only votes for the candidate who excels at politics, rather than the candidate who excels at reason. Contrary to popular belief, politics don't create politicians, voters do.

Obama says what he says because he receives applause, and he receives applause because the audience doesn't take his answer on its merits-they take it on their belief in him as a candidate, or their belief in the issue, or their belief in the party/group/organization he belongs to, or whatever else. If the audience had paused to reflect, and decided to boo him instead--I bet we'd see a pretty quick change in the way he answers questions in the future.

^ I'm not sure I understand your point, is Obama supposed to say "fuck you, I'm gonna run this country my way if you elect me, and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass"?

That's certainly how Bush/Cheney have done, and it's been bad for them and the country.

If your point is to say that Obama has no conviction of his own except ambition, I disagree. He's been pretty damned consistent all through his entire career, including both the primary and what's transpired so far in the GE. The worst "flip-flop" charge you can really level at him is that he didn't fight FISA tooth and nail, and is indicating he's willing to negotiate on offshore drilling.

While I'm not pleased about either of those, I can understand the necessity of not repeating the mistakes of the Republican party, and being uncompromising, and extremist about...everything.

Besides, to me, Obama is great with both reasoned policies, as well as politically selling them. McCain is neither.

As for the exchange here, the only smart response was to be diplomatic -- he agrees with them on basic principle, but not in intensity of response. He did a pretty good job of making that much clear, I thought.

What, to you, would have been a better response?

Wow, what a big deal about stuttering.

Just ebcause we can hear only his voice since he has a mic doesn't mean nobody else was talking.

When you want someone to listen to you, you don't talk over them. Not unless you want to come out looking like a powermonger.

Imagine if this had happened at a Bush townhall (they never allowed it to happen because they only admitted soft critics so the question is moot) the guys would have been tasered and carried away by three beefy security dudes.

Obama handles himself as one has come to expect. A very impressive speaker, a mind like that is qualified to lead, imho.

"Obama is great with both reasoned policies..."

If this is true, you should be able to provide at least one "reasoned" policy along with an sound explanation as to why it is "reasoned".

"A very impressive speaker..."

If this is true, you should be able to provide a list of qualities which define an "impressive speaker" and then demonstrate how Obama fulfills these requirements in the video.

Its nice that you have opinions, but how about framing them in a non-emotional context so that others can understand you?

"What, to you, would have been a better response?"

My response is not really applicable because I disagree with Obama on the basic principles involved, as well as his alleged responses to the events when they occurred.

My response however, would be as follows:
"I have in the past, and will continue to, uncompromisingly protect the rights of the african american community. However, young man, you do not derive your rights as an african american--you derive them as an individual, as a human being--and I will guarantee that no citizen of the United States of America, african american or otherwise, will ever have his or her right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, compromised in any form--be it the excessive use of force in the arrest of Sean Bell, the 8th amendment violations in the Gina Six case, or the widespread 2nd amendment and property right violations in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

I hope that in the future, you will continue to defend your culture and heritage as proudly as you do today, but that you will see yourself not just as member of society, or any group therein, but as an individual whose rights should never be violated."

>> ^imstellar28:
"Obama is great with both reasoned policies..."
If this is true, you should be able to provide at least one "reasoned" policy along with an sound explanation as to why it is "reasoned".

Withdraw from Iraq. We never should have gone in, and now both the Iraqi people and the American people want us to leave. We can't afford the war, and it's not even close to being necessary for our national defense.

Focus tax cuts on people making less than $250,000, while increasing taxes on those making more to attempt to balance the budget (withdrawing from Iraq is a big help, too). Helps stimulate the economy, help out the people hit hardest by rising gas & food prices and will help move us closer to a balanced budget.

Focus energy policy on incentives for private development of alternative energy resources to permanently end America's dependence on oil, rather than focusing on land handouts to oil companies who already have leases on 68 million acres of land for drilling (including some offshore areas), while doing nothing to end the dependency on oil, just prolong it.

There's three, but I don't expect you to judge them reasoned. At which point I can contritely say "It's nice you have opinions, despite being hard of thinking".

"A very impressive speaker..."
If this is true, you should be able to provide a list of qualities which define an "impressive speaker" and then demonstrate how Obama fulfills these requirements in the video.

That's not actually a quote from me, but I'll take it...and then mock your need for a definition of impressive speaker.

In this case I'd probably say what's impressive is how he handles the situation through dialogue. He doesn't just signal for guards to eject the hecklers, or ignore them, or insult them (as McCain has done). Instead he asks them to be quiet, and promises to let them have a chance to ask a question later...and they do so.

When the question gets asked later, he's being shouted at, and interrupted, but still treats the guy with respect, and tries to respond to his concerns, while both explaining and defending his responses in the past.

But if you're looking for moving monologues from Obama where he speaks fluidly, I can show you quite a few from other circumstances.

Its nice that you have opinions, but how about framing them in a non-emotional context so that others can understand you?

Your words:

Transcript for the hard of hearing/thinking:

how to deflect attention from your ridiculous response, while trying to establish false credibility through past actions, in stutter

how to ineffectively cope with your questioner confronting the absurdity of your response, in stutter

This is true, if one only votes for the candidate who excels at politics, rather than the candidate who excels at reason.

I am inclined to agree that a candidate who forgoes rational thought in order to "play politics" is indeed unfit to lead this country...in a positive direction.

As well intentioned as the young man was with his question, his argument from a civil rights perspective is misguided--we derive our rights as human beings--not as members of a special interest group.

All of these statements are insulting, including the portion of your comment I'm responding to. Expect some emotion in response.

"What, to you, would have been a better response?"
My response is not really applicable because I disagree with Obama on the basic principles involved, as well as his alleged responses to the events when they occurred.
My response however, would be as follows:
"I have in the past, and will continue to, uncompromisingly protect the rights of the african american community. However, young man, you do not derive your rights as an african american--you derive them as an individual, as a human being--and I will guarantee that no citizen of the United States of America, african american or otherwise, will ever have his or her right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, compromised in any form--be it the excessive use of force in the arrest of Sean Bell, the 8th amendment violations in the Gina Six case, or the widespread 2nd amendment and property right violations in the wake of hurricane Katrina.
I hope that in the future, you will continue to defend your culture and heritage as proudly as you do today, but that you will see yourself not just as member of society, or any group therein, but as an individual whose rights should never be violated."

That's a pretty good response.

However, it doesn't really fit the tone of an informal townhall, and wait till the Republican party plays "I have in the past, and will continue to, uncompromisingly protect the rights of the african american community" out of context endlessly while spreading insinuations that he's just a new Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, while Fox News brings the heckler on national TV to talk about how that's a load of bull.

You can nitpick about whether or not he "stuttered" in his reply, or whether the words he used comprised the optimal response or not, you can bring up your general distaste for his policies, your distaste for his supporters, and you can mock people who're offended by all of the above, but the fundamental difference on display here is the fact that he reacted to their protest by letting them speak, and giving them an answer that treated them respectfully (and avoided political landmines), while McCain has people like that escorted out by the Secret Service or local police.

nobody is "nitpicking" about the stuttering. responding calmly under pressure is not a "nit".

i have noticed that criticism of obama automatically gets interpreted as support for mccain. why not disagree with them both? they are both politicians, politicians have a 98% suck rate.

ahhhhh but you have the two party system which means you vote for the guy you think is least shit. clever system that... kinda makes anyone with real change on their agenda look... well... kooky. kucinich anyone? nah, thought not. he's "unelectable" right? so carry on choosing between your two liars.

notice how none of them talk about changing the two party gravytrain that has kept them all in nice suits for so many years.

^ I agree the two party system needs to change. It's not going to happen in the 2008 Presidential election.

If that's ever going to happen, it'll come when a third party starts winning seats in congress, and probably they won't have a serious shot at winning the Presidency until they become a large enough bloc in congress to thwart the Democrats and Republicans.

There's a reason why smears against Obama are seen as endorsement of McCain; that's what the entire Republican party is hinging their campaign on. They want to frame the entire election as being a yes/no vote on Obama, instead of a choice between Obama and McCain, because they know if people look closely at McCain, he will lose. So they always drive the conversation to "are you sure about Obama?"

I hear you about wanting more from the U.S. in terms of the environment and several other issues, but bashing the candidate from the major party that wants to move things towards what you want is more likely to help elect the person who wants to move the U.S. further away from what you want.

i am not so sure he really wants what i want to move towards.

look what bush campaigned on and what actually happened.

i have noticed that criticism of obama automatically gets interpreted as support for mccain. why not disagree with them both? they are both politicians, politicians have a 98% suck rate.

Exactly. Being the best candidate currently running for office is like being the hottest waitress at Dennys.

If the bar for "impressive speaking" is set to those who don't taze/beat/remove their audience members, then whew what can I say....I knew at least a couple people who got B's and C's in public speaking, and I don't remember any of them physically removing people after the "questions?" slide...

Personally, I would rather starve to death than accept the choice between food laced with anthrax, or food laced with cynanide. Likewise, I would rather abstain from voting, or vote a write-in, than vote the "lesser of two evils."

There's three, but I don't expect you to judge them reasoned. At which point I can contritely say "It's nice you have opinions, despite being hard of thinking".

Why wouldn't you expect me to judge your response reasoned? If you provide clear, rational explanations there would be no way I could possibly refute you. In posing a question, in no way am I betraying my opinion on the subject.

Withdraw from Iraq. We never should have gone in, and now both the Iraqi people and the American people want us to leave. We can't afford the war, and it's not even close to being necessary for our national defense.

I will agree that this is a rational policy. While you do provide the same reasons I would, you do not support them with any evidence--thus it would be hard to convince an opponent that did not already agree with you (as I do). The war is wrong for several reasons: 1. It has cost 3,000 billion dollars thus far, all of which has been deficit spending, and all of which will be paid for by forced (immoral) taxation 2. The cost/benefit ratio is all wrong--we are not getting a return on our investment--in terms of increase in national security, or any other indicators 3. There is no legal or moral basis for the invasion of another country as an act of aggression...if the iraqis had pooled their money and hired us as an arbiter, only then would we have the moral basis for occupation/invasion.

Focus tax cuts on people making less than $250,000, while increasing taxes on those making more to attempt to balance the budget (withdrawing from Iraq is a big help, too). Helps stimulate the economy, help out the people hit hardest by rising gas & food prices and will help move us closer to a balanced budget.

Taxes do not stimulate the economy, neither does price fixing. Read "Economics in One Lesson" (http://www.google.com/search?q=economics+in+one+lesson) for an explanation why. Taxes are also immoral and illegal, as they violate the most fundamental human right--the one from which all others are derived--the right to think and act freely in the abscence of coercion, physical or otherwise.

Focus energy policy on incentives for private development of alternative energy resources to permanently end America's dependence on oil, rather than focusing on land handouts to oil companies who already have leases on 68 million acres of land for drilling (including some offshore areas), while doing nothing to end the dependency on oil, just prolong it.

The is no rational economic argument supporting government subsidies, or regulation of the free market. Energy solutions via invention and innovation must be made in the private sector, as part of a free market. See the book above.

^i agree... except that artistic creativity is incompatible with the free market and needs protection. and there's many other caveats, like national defence. And who wants to live in a society that lets people die horribly just because they "chose" not to buy health insurance? etc.

Also, the "innovation" of the gasoline burning car came from the private sector, (and the ban on marijuana which makes good ethanol)... and Windows 95 came from the private sector, so i reckon you have to be careful when lauding the private sector's "innovations".

Also, the "innovation" of the gasoline burning car came from the private sector, (and the ban on marijuana which makes good ethanol)... and Windows 95 came from the private sector, so i reckon you have to be careful when lauding the private sector's "innovations".

I think one could make a case for the gasoline fired internal combustion engine being been one of the most short-sighted and detrimental inventions of the last century...however its adoption is not a criticism of the free market, it is a criticism of our societal values--and a clear indicator of the extent of our current moral bankruptcy.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by kulpims.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.