Obama is not a good speaker and doesn't seem that intellegent

[livehard]

One of the greatest fallacies going on is that Obama is a great speaker of our generation.  I believe that most young people, who are ignorant in the writings and speeches of histories' great orators, have unjustifiably found inspiration and emotional apeal in the shallow speeches of Obama.

If you listen to him speak when he doesn't have his telepromter, or has to answer a tough interview question, 50% of the noise that comes out of his mouth consists of "uh".  This is not a person who is eloquent,or confident with his ideas.  He has had more speaking gaffes than Bush yet the idea he is another Lincon lives on.

Then there is the content of his planned speeches.  The are shallow and appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Rife with MLK-like inflection, Obama simply lists a bunch of catch phrases and sound bytes.  Then there is the forced psuedo-ebonic phrases he uses-  Dropping his "g's" and "usin'" slang to make sure he connects with the less intellegent.  You read some of the founding father's wiritings and you see that they are far more substanative.  They are able to infuse their ideals about the country with their grasp on vocabulary.  They are full of reasoning and logic.  Obama's speeches consist far more about making a statement and then using an emotional appeal through listing a string of adjectives and adverbs to describe that which he is arguing for.  Eloquent people do not do that.

I believe that he truly went into this presidency thinking that he could inspire the country into improvement.  But just like his speeches his theory lacks logic.  Nobody cares how many speeches he gives.  He can't speak his way into a good economy.  I would rather have a mute than someone who thinks that wealth is a "pie" that needs to be shared.  His views on economics are no better than that of a high schoolers, yet somehow people though he was qualified? 

He's never really worked- he was a community organizer.   If your BS-ometer isn't shining bright red when you hear that term, get it checked.  That doesn't mean anything; its not a job.  Next time don't elect a junior senator who would probibaly still be "organizing" the community if it weren't for his age/race.

[Perpetual Change]

I certainly don't find his public speaking to be very captivating. But pretending he's had more gaffes than Bush is just silly. You seem to be saying he has, but it's gone unnoticed? If it's not getting noticed, it's because Bush spoke incorrectly when it was fairly obvious to begin with that he didn't know what he was talking about. Obama seems to take another route. He just speaks over everyone's heads and bores people out of listening and/or caring.

He's never really worked- he was a community organizer. 

Wasn't he also a college professor and a state senator?

[livehard]

I guess those count... kind of...

[El Barto]

I certainly don't find his public speaking to be very captivating. But pretending he's had more gaffes than Bush is just silly.

Yeah,  that's my take.  And when it comes to unscripted dialog,  bad though he may be,  he still destroys Bush. 

[antigoon]

I think he's a fine speaker.

[Sigz]

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Nope, never worked a day in his life.

[Perpetual Change]

What livehard was getting at is Obama's never had do any real work like acting in movies.

[livehard]

What livehard was getting at is Obama's never had do any real work like acting in movies.

Hey at least Reagan saw a market demand for a b-list actor and worked to fill it.  At least it was a real world job.

[antigoon]

Poe

[Sigz]

What livehard was getting at is Obama's never had do any real work like acting in movies.

Hey at least Reagan saw a market demand for a b-list actor and worked to fill it.  At least it was a real world job.

Wait, so being an actor is a 'real world' job, but being an attorney is not?

[Ryzee]

I think- and I could be way off base here- but I think what the OP meant was that he doesn't like Obama.  Probably due to his political affiliations.  Just the impression that I get.

[PraXis]

Obama is a typical academic. He's very book smart and I'm sure he's studied up on all kinds of theories, but when it comes to actually DOING something (i.e. meeting payroll to run a business), he's clueless.

[Scheavo]

The man was a college professor, and a highly liked one. That right there means that the man can speak in front of a group of people and be entertaining.

I certainly don't find his public speaking to be very captivating. But pretending he's had more gaffes than Bush is just silly.

Yeah,  that's my take.  And when it comes to unscripted dialog,  bad though he may be,  he still destroys Bush.

When it comes to unscripted dialog, he also shows off a very impressive memory and knowledge base. The man is far from stupid, he's probably technically the smartest we've had in a while.

Obama is a typical academic. He's very book smart and I'm sure he's studied up on all kinds of theories, but when it comes to actually DOING something (i.e. meeting payroll to run a business), he's clueless.

I think this is fair, but it might also be more fair in the past than the future. As in, after now being President for a few years, Obama is learning how to meet the payroll.

[livehard]

The man was a college professor, and a highly liked one. That right there means that the man can speak in front of a group of people and be entertaining.

I certainly don't find his public speaking to be very captivating. But pretending he's had more gaffes than Bush is just silly.

Yeah,  that's my take.  And when it comes to unscripted dialog,  bad though he may be,  he still destroys Bush.

When it comes to unscripted dialog, he also shows off a very impressive memory and knowledge base. The man is far from stupid, he's probably technically the smartest we've had in a while.

Obama is a typical academic. He's very book smart and I'm sure he's studied up on all kinds of theories, but when it comes to actually DOING something (i.e. meeting payroll to run a business), he's clueless.

I think this is fair, but it might also be more fair in the past than the future. As in, after now being President for a few years, Obama is learning how to meet the payroll.

Being a professor, or a civil rights attorney doesn't impress me... He is simply an academic.  His struggle with understanding basic market economics is not suprising for someone with his background.

A community organizer means nothing to me.  I highly doubt that the free society paid for whatever it is he did when he did that...

[Scheavo]

So talking in front of a lot of students on a daily basis, and being highly liked, means nothing to you when you consider his speaking ability? He was a professional lecturer, and college students hate boring teachers / speakers.

I think its funny how we in this country love to claim the ideal that anyone can become president, but then hold them to such a standard of experience that it's ridiculous, and does nothing but breed career politicians.

[livehard]

Yeah he doesn't seem to have much real world experience.  I definitely do not think he's a great speaker.  I think he appeals to the emotions of a lot of college students, and could see how he would be well liked by them.  Example: his use of ebonics or whatever.  But to anyone who cares for substance or eloquence, no he's not very good.

[El Barto]

Being a professor, or a civil rights attorney doesn't impress me... He is simply an academic.  His struggle with understanding basic market economics is not suprising for someone with his background.

For a hundred and fifty years,  tons of very intelligent, very well educated, and very well informed economists have been bickering back and forth over the proper applications of market economics.   You criticize Obama for his lack of understanding of so called "Basic market economics" based on the simple fact that he's following a different tack than the one you prefer.  That's an overly simplistic point of view and an unfair criticism. 

[livehard]

If you think wealth is a pie, you have a simplistic view of economics.  He's no doubt a very populist take from the rich give to the poor person, and I don't know how someone with such silly views can rise so high, however, I don't understand how someone can make a living being a "community organizer" either... I didn't know there was a market for such a thing...

[kirksnosehair]

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Nope, never worked a day in his life.

I really enjoy the fine odor of pwnage in the early afternoon 

[kirksnosehair]

Obama is a typical academic. He's very book smart and I'm sure he's studied up on all kinds of theories, but when it comes to actually DOING something (i.e. meeting payroll to run a business), he's clueless.

And you're basing this on, what, exactly?  On the fact that he can't get any policies enacted in the face of a united opposition party in the legislative branch that has every political reason to continue to deny him any type of legislative action?   

Please.

If you're a conservative and you don't like liberal economic or social policy, fine.  That's understandable.  I GET that.  What I don't get are baseless assertions like the one you made in your post.

[livehard]

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Nope, never worked a day in his life.

I really enjoy the fine odor of pwnage in the early afternoon 

I never said he didn't do work.  I said he didnt do any work in the private market, in business.  Its kinda  joke.  Living in the fake world of academia, not really wondering how jobs/jobs creation work.

Being a community organizer is a joke.

[El Barto]

Assuming that neither candidate is named Obama,  who would you consider a better potential president.  A constitutional law professor or the manager of an Arby's?

[livehard]

Successful businessman>Constitutional Law Professor>Arby's manager>Community Organizer.

[kirksnosehair]

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Nope, never worked a day in his life.

I really enjoy the fine odor of pwnage in the early afternoon 

I never said he didn't do work. 

He's never really worked- he was a community organizer.   If your BS-ometer isn't shining bright red when you hear that term, get it checked.  That doesn't mean anything; its not a job.  Next time don't elect a junior senator who would probibaly still be "organizing" the community if it weren't for his age/race.

Now that we've cleared up what you did and did not post, let's review the facts a bit, OK? 

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

I don't know where you are from, but where I am from being a Law Professor involves preparing classes, giving lectures, grading papers, and other various tasks, most of which would be commonly referred to as "work" but I see from most of your posts here that you're a conservative and obviously quite hostile to and/or dismissive of "academia" so we can also assume that when he served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate, that he "went to work" on most days, you know, in an office somewhere.  Just like being an attorney involves "work" as well.  You know, you don't just get to change the meaning of the word "work" to make your biased arguments look like they're not biased.  You don't LIKE or RESPECT that he worked in academia, fine, then tell us you don't like or respect that he worked in academia, but the fact is, he has worked long and hard to get to where he is and your ultra-partisan dismissal of this fact should be taken with a mountain of salt.

[livehard]

Yes I mean working in the private sector, working in business...

[kirksnosehair]

Yes I mean working in the private sector, working in business...

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

That he's a bad speaker?  Or that he's never really worked? 

Being an attorney isn't "work" ?

[GuineaPig]

This thread is pretty funny.

[Sigz]

Being an attorney isn't "work" ?

Apparently it isn't 'private sector' either.

[livehard]

No his time was a lawyer was tied to government litigation.  Its BS work.  Doing voter registration drives like ACORN is a joke.  Go out and produce don't push papers.

Beurocrats "work" but they don't produce any output, any real work.  Thats what I want out of a candidate.  Thats part of the reason why I think he believes just giving speaches will somehow make change, because he has no idea how to produce something.

[kirksnosehair]

No his time was a lawyer was tied to government litigation.  Its BS work.  Doing voter registration drives like ACORN is a joke.  Go out and produce don't push papers.

Beurocrats "work" but they don't produce any output, any real work.  Thats what I want out of a candidate.  Thats part of the reason why I think he believes just giving speaches will somehow make change, because he has no idea how to produce something.

More qualifying.  OK, now we're getting somewhere.  So you acknowledge that he actually HAS worked in the private sector, you just don't like the work he did because it was apparently in support of some stuff that you don't agree with politically.   So, anyone who doesn't "produce" has a "BS" job?

So, your problem is with people who have white collar jobs who don't produce anything? 

In order for a person to "make changes" as a President, they must have, in some past occupation, "produced" something? 

Help me out here, man, because I'm getting kind of confused trying to follow your logic.

[livehard]

No his time was a lawyer was tied to government litigation.  Its BS work.  Doing voter registration drives like ACORN is a joke.  Go out and produce don't push papers.

More qualifying.  OK, now we're getting somewhere.  So you acknowledge that he actually HAS worked in the private sector, you just don't like the work he did because it was apparently in support of some stuff that you don't agree with politically.   So, anyone who doesn't "produce" has a "BS" job?

So, your problem is with people who have white collar jobs who don't produce anything?

Help me out here, man, because I'm getting kind of confused trying to follow your logic.

Not its not a white vs blue collar thing at all..

I think he did some sort of private litigation, but mostly as a community organizer, or professor, or government official, he isn't driving the ecomomy.  You're most likely inhibiting it.  I don't think he added much value.  I'd rather someone who built a business, produced a good or service, employed people, etc... 

Its not that difficult to understand.

[kirksnosehair]

No his time was a lawyer was tied to government litigation.  Its BS work.  Doing voter registration drives like ACORN is a joke.  Go out and produce don't push papers.

More qualifying.  OK, now we're getting somewhere.  So you acknowledge that he actually HAS worked in the private sector, you just don't like the work he did because it was apparently in support of some stuff that you don't agree with politically.   So, anyone who doesn't "produce" has a "BS" job?

So, your problem is with people who have white collar jobs who don't produce anything?

Help me out here, man, because I'm getting kind of confused trying to follow your logic.

Not its not a white vs blue collar thing at all..

I think he did some sort of private litigation, but mostly as a community organizer, or professor, or government official, he isn't driving the ecomomy.  You're most likely inhibiting it.  I don't think he added much value.  I'd rather someone who built a business, produced a good or service, employed people, etc... 

Its not that difficult to understand.

Ahh, right, now the subtle insults 

"You Think" he did "some sort of private litigation"    So, basically, you're now admitting that you're, well, just kind of winging it here?  Sort of making up the narrative as you go along?  You think?  Really?  I'm not convinced     

So, anyone who works in the capacity of "community organizer" or "professor" or "government official" has absolutely ZERO income on their W2?  Nothing?  Nada?  Zilch? 

Because, if you know ANYTHING AT ALL about economics, (especially macro-economics, you know, like the United States economy  ) then you know that consumer spending makes up the vast majority of "the economy" and you have to be employed in order to engage in "spending" as a "consumer" correct?

Do you think Obama and his family ever spent any of the money they earned?  I'm going way out on a limb here and I'm going to guess that they've purchased homes, cars, goods and services in their state.  That would mean they've helped the economy in the same way that practically every citizen of the country helps the economy every day, by spending their pay checks.

As far as creating goods, what about his books?  Are those just vapor?  That is a tangible item, that he created, and has actually sold millions, by the way.  Do you have a copy of any of his work?  It's excellent reading.  I'll be happy to loan you my copy. 

[Super Dude]

Obama is a typical academic. He's very book smart and I'm sure he's studied up on all kinds of theories, but when it comes to actually DOING something (i.e. meeting payroll to run a business), he's clueless.

Repeat after me: government is not a business. There are different rules.

[livehard]

No his time was a lawyer was tied to government litigation.  Its BS work.  Doing voter registration drives like ACORN is a joke.  Go out and produce don't push papers.

More qualifying.  OK, now we're getting somewhere.  So you acknowledge that he actually HAS worked in the private sector, you just don't like the work he did because it was apparently in support of some stuff that you don't agree with politically.   So, anyone who doesn't "produce" has a "BS" job?

So, your problem is with people who have white collar jobs who don't produce anything?

Help me out here, man, because I'm getting kind of confused trying to follow your logic.

Not its not a white vs blue collar thing at all..

I think he did some sort of private litigation, but mostly as a community organizer, or professor, or government official, he isn't driving the ecomomy.  You're most likely inhibiting it.  I don't think he added much value.  I'd rather someone who built a business, produced a good or service, employed people, etc... 

Its not that difficult to understand.

Ahh, right, now the subtle insults 

"You Think" he did "some sort of private litigation"    So, basically, you're now admitting that you're, well, just kind of winging it here?  Sort of making up the narrative as you go along?  You think?  Really?  I'm not convinced     

So, anyone who works in the capacity of "community organizer" or "professor" or "government official" has absolutely ZERO income on their W2?  Nothing?  Nada?  Zilch? 

Because, if you know ANYTHING AT ALL about economics, (especially macro-economics, you know, like the United States economy  ) then you know that consumer spending makes up the vast majority of "the economy" and you have to be employed in order to engage in "spending" as a "consumer" correct?

Do you think Obama and his family ever spent any of the money they earned?  I'm going way out on a limb here and I'm going to guess that they've purchased homes, cars, goods and services in their state.  That would mean they've helped the economy in the same way that practically every citizen of the country helps the economy every day, by spending their pay checks.

As far as creating goods, what about his books?  Are those just vapor?  That is a tangible item, that he created, and has actually sold millions, by the way.  Do you have a copy of any of his work?  It's excellent reading.  I'll be happy to loan you my copy. 

Oh I have no doubt that he spent money.  But Im talking about OUTPUT.  What worthwhile did he produce? Not much in my opinion.

He is just so far disconnected with reality.  And I truly think its because he never learned what business is about.  He always saw it from a government interventionist side.  But whats shocking is that he still thinks he has the answers after having so little experience.  He should at least be true to himself and realize that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[MetalMike06]

I'm not an Obama supporter, but experience and speaking ability don't mean a whole lot to me. Bush was quite experienced in the private sector before taking office but that didn't mean he was effectively different in any way, politically.

If you're gonna criticize people, argue issues.