So, seriously, it's a huge issue for you? You really thinks it's an actual sign of stupidity?
The Just Say No Deal
- Thread starter andrewgpisme
- Start date
So, seriously, it's a huge issue for you? You really thinks it's an actual sign of stupidity?
A first grader knows how many states there are. If you're honestly trying to imply that he didn't, you are, as JH said, stretching.
Man, I have said stupider things than that when no where near as exausted as a candidate running a 16th month campaign would be.
Not a big issue, no. Was Bush's ignorance of the Taliban a big issue? Not as well, because ultimately they both have well informed assistants that will keep them on line. But should mock them for their ignorance? Hell yes.
In fact the video did left me with the very clear impression that he had absolutely no idea how many states there are. If he knew he would have corrected right after, as I do when I say something terribly stupid (and I don't seem to forget the number of states ever).augurey said:
Anyway, it's not that much of a big deal. So the man is not the wise messiah some of his supporters make him out to be. I don't think McCain is very well informed either. Not to mention Bush. The difference of course is that I am yet to see one McCain supporter say stuff like "McCain is uber-smart" which is why I pick on Obama more.
It is you, Obama supporters, who make a big deal about me pointing out one statement of obvious ignorance because you idolise the man and can't accept anything other than compliments to his great wisdom and knowledge. Which in my opinion do not exist.
Heading the Harvard Law Review and teaching at the University of Chicago are not things that people of limited intellectual ability do.
So far I have only seen detractors refer to Obama as some sort of messiah.
aelf
Ashen One
A good orator is a political genius. Even if he is not very intellectual, it doesn't matter. Few people have taken power based on the fact they were intellectuals.
Shadylookin
master debater
I don't understand why. Obama and Hilary's stances are practically the same. So if you're a democrat and you're voting for McCain because Hil lost you're just spiting yourself and when McCain gets to implement his policies and his judicial choices I don't want to hear any complaining 
Trajan12
Deity
I don't think the guy seriously believed that there are 57 states...
Know the difference between a genuine lack of knowledge and a simple slip up. This is a slip up. An example of the former would be, not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia.
Serious? The size of rock someone in the US would have to have lived under their entire life to not know there were 50 states is about the size of a mountain.
He's made some slips worth mentioning, but this isn't one of them.
The reason people make a big deal about you pointing that out is because it's so ludicrous that he wouldn't know there were 50 states. It's like not knowing what 5x5 equals. It really is.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
I don't understand this. If one supported Hillary before (which I did btw, you can look it up), what is the point of not going for Obama now? Their differences in policy are as negligible as differently coated M&Ms. If you could vote for Hillary, you can vote for Obama.
I actually liked Obama a lot more over the course of the campaign, but for reasons that other people probably never considered:
1. I loved the Trinity Church debacle. Before that I couldn't stand listening to those Obama speeches because they are littered with pointless religious allusions every other sentence. I agree with most of his goals, but find that they have better and more coherent secular reasonings. Now that his church image became a disgrace, his speeches noticeably took a more secular and humanistic tone. I liked that, even though I'm still unsure whether the secular arguments are his reasoning while the religious are his excuses or vice versa.
2. While I supported Hillary, I naturally despised Obama campaign's effort to paint every criticism of Obama as racism. Apparently, you can even be a racist by complimenting his oratory skills with 'obviously racially-charged' words as 'eloquent'. I'm not sure if there actually ever was a context where that connection can be construed, but even if an obscure ancient scenario exists, what does it bode for Obama's claim to be 'above the conflicts of the previous generation' if he can be riled up by something of such triviality? But now, as I look at it again, despicable as it may be, it may be one of the only ways to wrestle the seat of power away from Republican hands.
Of course, many of these calculations are quite depraved when used on a human being. However, I see Obama (and Clinton and McCain) as just another politician, not fully a human being. Those people who would vote Republican if their favorite Democratic candidate is not selected are in for a world of disappointment no matter what. A small disappointment if and when their candidate loses, or a large disappointment if their candidate wins when they find out that their candidate is merely a politician, less than a human.
You can go look up how upset some conservatives are at Bush right now.
I actually liked Obama a lot more over the course of the campaign, but for reasons that other people probably never considered:
1. I loved the Trinity Church debacle. Before that I couldn't stand listening to those Obama speeches because they are littered with pointless religious allusions every other sentence. I agree with most of his goals, but find that they have better and more coherent secular reasonings. Now that his church image became a disgrace, his speeches noticeably took a more secular and humanistic tone. I liked that, even though I'm still unsure whether the secular arguments are his reasoning while the religious are his excuses or vice versa.
2. While I supported Hillary, I naturally despised Obama campaign's effort to paint every criticism of Obama as racism. Apparently, you can even be a racist by complimenting his oratory skills with 'obviously racially-charged' words as 'eloquent'. I'm not sure if there actually ever was a context where that connection can be construed, but even if an obscure ancient scenario exists, what does it bode for Obama's claim to be 'above the conflicts of the previous generation' if he can be riled up by something of such triviality? But now, as I look at it again, despicable as it may be, it may be one of the only ways to wrestle the seat of power away from Republican hands.
Of course, many of these calculations are quite depraved when used on a human being. However, I see Obama (and Clinton and McCain) as just another politician, not fully a human being. Those people who would vote Republican if their favorite Democratic candidate is not selected are in for a world of disappointment no matter what. A small disappointment if and when their candidate loses, or a large disappointment if their candidate wins when they find out that their candidate is merely a politician, less than a human.
You can go look up how upset some conservatives are at Bush right now.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
There's probably lots of reasons why all these different factions want to give Obama the boot.
When I was in college, I ran afoul of a liberal activist who wanted Clinton removed from office. Why? Because Clinton voted against.....which was it.....AB101 or something. Basically this guy was a single-issue person. He cared about gay rights and nothing else. Clinton wasn't fruity enough, so this activist wanted him out even if that meant putting a conservative wingnut in the White House.
A whole lot of people want their candidate to be exactly so-and-so on every single issue. Perfection or nothing. Every single time, they're going to come up empty-handed.
Berzerker
Deity
One voted to give the President the power to declare war, the other opposed that war.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
nonconformist
Miserable
Similar threads
