DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on June 22, 2008, 11:21:05 PM
-
Here is Obama's presidential seal.
(http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/assets_c/2008/06/Obama's%20great%20seal%20small-thumb-425x660.jpg)
Don't even have an election. This guy is entitled to the office.
-
What the Hell is your point?
-
What the Hell is your point?
Isn't it "obvious"?
Obama is an arrogant jackass. He looked like a damn fool holding a press conference behind that seal. Just because he has a fawning press doesn't make him the president. He has to get elected first, and I doubt he can beat McCain.
-
Obviously a campaign seal, not a Presidential seal.
-
Obviously a campaign seal, not a Presidential seal.
I bet we never see it again. It is this type of arrogance that is going to prevent Obama from standing behind the real presidential seal.
-
CHICAGO - Barack Obama?s presidential campaign rolled out a new slogan on Friday: ?Vero Possumus.?
The Latin phrase roughly translates to his main campaign mantra, ?Yes, we can.?
The words made their debut on a seal on the Democratic White House hopeful?s podium as he met with governors from his party in Chicago. The seal resembled the official presidential seal, complete with a picture of the American eagle with ?Vero Possumus? inscribed above it.
It helped complete a presidential-looking setting for Obama?s meeting with the governors. In addition to the seal were a row of American flags lined up behind Obama and long blue curtains that also adorned the backdrop of the roundtable meeting.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
Photo: Reuters/Jim Bourg - Barack Obama at a news conference after meeting his foreign policy advisory panel at a hotel in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2008.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/20/obama-gets-a-new-latin-slogan-vero-possumus/
-
Should we make it illegal for a presidential candidate to speak at a podium embellished with any sort of seal, so as to assuage the delicate sensibilities of Republican diehards?
I suppose you imagine that Michelle and Barak and the girls all got together, got out their Crayolas?, and all hunkered down at the kitchen table and made this seal just to annoy you.
Should Americans vote against a candidate for president because (gasp!) he has the audacity to want the job, and demonstrates this shamelessly by making a campaign seal? Is that what you're saying, Bunkie?
-
Is Obama's new faux-presidential, alternative-reality seal his "Mission Accomplished"? If you wanted to emphasize to voters that the Democrats' nominee is a bit stuck up, it would be hard to do better. I suppose he could start requiring reporters to stand when he enters the room. ... The seal probably started out as a bit of fun. But unless David Axelrod is insane, the thing will never be seen again.
Mickey Kaus is hardly a die hard Republican and he thinks the use of the seal was ridiculous.
http://www.slate.com/id/2193674/#sealgate
-
This is a very silly issue, if indeed it is an issue at all. If he loses the seal or keeps it, so what?
I am thinking that Mickey Kaus's parents perhaps were not thinking too clearly about naming their son "Michael", with perhaps no thought that he might later be referred to as "Mickey Kaus", and thereby be taken less seriously.
-
I am thinking that Mickey Kaus's parents perhaps were not thinking too clearly about naming their son "Michael", with perhaps no thought that he might later be referred to as "Mickey Kaus", and thereby be taken less seriously.
Hmmm. Is it the name Mickey or is it Kaus that is the subject of your derision?
-
Hmmm. Is it the name Mickey or is it Kaus that is the subject of your derision?
=============================
There are names that go together, and others that do not.
Others are simply humorous. Xavier Onassis, for example.
Iwana Mann, I.P. Freeley, Jack Cass, Laura Lynn Hardy, Jack Goff, May Ann Naze
Mickey Kaus is, well, Mickey-Mouse.
-
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg)
(http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/obamaseal.jpg)
I don't think this is a big issue , but it is a fun one .
Do Barak Obama or his adoring followers feel as if the Contest should be over now?
Should any criticism of the canadate be construed as reactionary racism and any challenge to the Senators claim on the presidency be abandoned?
This is supposed to be a contest and a chance for people to get to know the canadates , can we learn something usefull from the "vera possimus" seal?
-
This is supposed to be a contest and a chance for people to get to know the canadates , can we learn something usefull from the "vera possimus" seal?
====================================
If you look VERY CLOSELY, you might learn that "vero possimus" means 'Yes we can".
It's vero, not vera, by the way.
The verbal ending -mus in Latin means "we". Vero is related to such words as very, verily, veritable, verify, and verification. It is related to the word veritas, which means "truth" in Latin.
Other information would be that you would learn Obama's website address, and that he is running for president.
A bright person might conclude that he has at least one opponent, hence the need for an election.
Note the color blue is used throughout. This might also mean something to some Americans.
-
Note the color blue is used throughout. This might also mean something to some Americans.
He isn't going to try to be a uniter , good enough to please the base?
Chooseing a slogan and a symbol is portentious ,and this one seems presumptuous.
Not fatally so but good enough for a chuckle.
-
Chooseing a slogan and a symbol is portentious ,and this one seems presumptuous.
Not fatally so but good enough for a chuckle.
====================================
Portentious? Presumptuous? How would that apply? Should a presidential candidate refrain from all foreign languages, then?
Is the slogan on a dollar bill either of these? It is in Latin, after all.
Do you have any thoughts about what sort of slogan or symbol might be 'fatal'?
I am reminded of the "killer joke" skit Monty Python did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68
-
Personally, I think it is a little pretentious. I doubt Barack Obama asked for or approved it.
-
Personally, I think it is a little pretentious. I doubt Barack Obama asked for or approved it.
pretentious
Thank you
"Pretentious" Is the right word.
-
Here is Obama's presidential seal.
(http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/assets_c/2008/06/Obama's%20great%20seal%20small-thumb-425x660.jpg)
Don't even have an election. This guy is entitled to the office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/obama_seal
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A presidential seal graphically altered with symbols representing Barack Obama's campaign of change was just for one-time use and will not be used again, a spokeswoman for the Democrat's campaign said Monday.
The seal, with its blue background and an eagle in the center clutching arrows and an olive branch, evoked the official presidential version, but had been altered with a new Latin phrase, instead of the original "E pluribus unum," which means, "Out of many, one."
Obama's campaign changed the phrase to "Vero possumus," which can be roughly translated to his "Yes, we can" slogan. The seal also featured his "O" campaign logo covering the eagle's body, instead of a shield.
When the altered seal was unveiled last Friday in Chicago, it raised eyebrows and prompted comments about how presidential it looked. The Republican National Committee gleefully ridiculed it as a prop.
Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Obama's campaign, said Monday that the altered seal would not be used again. She said it was only intended for that event, in which Obama held a round-table discussion with Democratic governors.
I think they realised it was funny.
-
I suppose he could start requiring reporters to stand when he enters the room. ...
If they stop "swooning." Chris "thrill down his leg" Matthews would be the first one.
I must say that is probably the most annoying terminology injected into this campaign: swooning.
What the liberal media fails to realize is that there were young ladies fainting at McCain rallies too, though they never covered it as greatly as they did for the Obama rallies. It's from the heat and standing out there for hours, not because they are so enthralled with a candidate. They weren't "swooning." They were dehydrated.
Personally, I think it is a little pretentious.
Indeed.
And Obama backed down from using this faux presidential shield pretty damn fast, too.
How fast would this naive and inexperienced individual buckle under real pressure, like from Al Qaida?
-
And Obama backed down from using this faux presidential shield pretty damn fast, too.
How fast would this naive and inexperienced individual buckle under real pressure, like from Al Qaida?
=============================================
The campaign seal is trivial. There is no reason to stand up for trivialities.
I bet McCain has decided to wear different-colored neckwear on many occasions when Cindy suggested he do this. That would be a backing down, too, according to your feeble logic.
What sort of "real pressure" would Al Qaeda put on a president, anyway? Do you still think that they are something that is a real threat, like the Imperial Japanese Navy or Hitler's U-boats?
-
bet McCain has decided to wear different-colored neckwear on many occasions when Cindy suggested he do this. That would be a backing down, too, according to your feeble logic.
Are you suggesting that Michelle pushed for Obama to use the presidential seal? Sure, blame it on the angry lady.
Wearing a tie is nowhere near as pretentious as using a fake seal and pretending you are the president. Well maybe it is to you since you make your own clothes. If McCain entered the room to "Hail to the Chief" and asked reporters to stand, then that might be an apt comparison, but you are grasping at straws.
What sort of "real pressure" would Al Qaeda put on a president, anyway? Do you still think that they are something that is a real threat
Yes, as do other sane people. Are you familiar with 9/11?
-
Yes, as do other sane people. Are you familiar with 9/11?
===============================
That would be paranoid people.
9/11 could be pulled off just once, when the forces of stupidity and incompetence converged in the persons of Juniorbush and Condibird.
I don't think that Al Qaeda is actually capable of a second act, even with boobs and dummies in power.
Al Qaeda does not pressure the US, anyway. They do not ask for concessions in return for not attacking. They merely attack.
I failed to see what a silly campaign seal or the decision to use it or not has a single thing to do with Obama's abilities to be a good president.
-
That would be paranoid people.
9/11 could be pulled off just once, when the forces of stupidity and incompetence converged in the persons of Juniorbush and Condibird.
And Spain, and Bali, and London, and Kobar, and U.S.S. Cole, and the first WTC, and the Iraq Mosque bombing, and all the other atrocities that they have committed.
If President Bush did not take the aggressive action that he had after 9-11 there would have been even more attacks. Khalid Sheik Mohammad has even said this. Bush has prevented 10 major, catastrophic attacks against U.S. targets.
Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist, and you should be ashamed.
I don't think that Al Qaeda is actually capable of a second act, even with boobs and dummies in power.
See first answer.
Al Qaeda does not pressure the US, anyway. They do not ask for concessions in return for not attacking. They merely attack.
Obama is too inexperienced and naive to handle a catastrophic attack like 9-11. He just isn't prepared for it in the way John McCain is. And I don't particularly even like McCain. But he's very well suited to be Commander in Chief, I will grant him that. Obama's willingness to have sitdown meetings with our worst enemies without preconditions is also very dangerous and would put us as well as our allies further at risk. And would also grant legitimacy to the world's worst dictators by giving them the prestige of a sit down with the President of the United States.
I failed to see what a silly campaign seal or the decision to use it or not has a single thing to do with Obama's abilities to be a good president.
It goes to his poor judgment. His notion that it wouldn't be seen as arrogant or even shameless, as you yourself admitted, shows very poor judgment, just as his friendships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Father Pfliger showed very poor judgment. And his quick backdown from using the fake presidential shield also indicated that he doesn't have much of a spine to stand up for his ideas.
-
What sort of "real pressure" would Al Qaeda put on a president, anyway? Do you still think that they are something that is a real threat, like the Imperial Japanese Navy or Hitler's U-boats?
The Japaneese and German Navys spent a little time killing Americans , the German U-boats sometimes sank American ships in sight of the American ports they were leaveing with cargos of fuel and war materiel for Britan.
But Thank you FDR and Truman those dangers were overcome , lets be appreaciative of Preasident Bush too , Al Quieda is melting like Baghdad snow, they may never recover enough to attack the USA so seriously again.
-
<<If President Bush did not take the aggressive action that he had after 9-11 there would have been even more attacks. >>
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. Personally I believe the real reason that there were no more 9-11s so far is that it's such a hard act to follow. If they come up with anything less spectacular, they look like they are losing ground. The next attack has to be really, really colossal. Otherwise, they'll just look like losers.
<<Khalid Sheik Mohammad has even said this. >>
Since the strategy is to get the U.S. to radicalize the Arab populations of the puppet rulers, KSM will say anything that keeps America following on the path that Bush has opened up. I believe that Bush, his administration and the neo-cons in particular are the greatest gift that "militant Islam" could ever hope for. Certainly the greatest recruiting agents.
<<Bush has prevented 10 major, catastrophic attacks against U.S. targets.>>
Funny how he seems to get all the credit for preventing "major catastrophic attacks" that never occurred and none of the blame for failing to prevent the one certifiable major catastrophic attack that DID occur.
<<Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist, and you should be ashamed.>>
It didn't look racist to me, I thought it was just wordplay about a bird in the bush.
<<Obama is too inexperienced and naive to handle a catastrophic attack like 9-11. >>
McCain's an idiot. He had no constructive proposals to make in the wake of 9-11 and he very stupidly backed the invasion of Iraq which Obama had the good sense to oppose. Besides, there isn't much to "handle" once the enemy lands his sucker punch. The damage is done, the attackers are dead so they can't even be caught and tortured, and the rest is basically clean-up and hospital visits.
I personally would be a lot more concerned about which candidate is more likely to defuse the anger that motivates the attacks by examining America's traditional policies and seeing where they can be improved so as to generate less hatred of America and its people. In that regard, Obama is obviously more likely to deliver change than McSame.
<<Obama's willingness to have sitdown meetings with our worst enemies without preconditions is also very dangerous and would put us as well as our allies further at risk. >>
A man who isn't afraid to talk to anyone has a lot better chance of finding common ground, resolving animosity and getting past the past than some ass-hole who sits on his high horse and lays down "conditions" under which he will condescend to speak with you. The arrogance and chutzpah of the latter position is absolutely mind-boggling and it's amazing to me that any candidate would actually want to boast of such a regressive and counter-productive mind-set.
<<And would also grant legitimacy to the world's worst dictators by giving them the prestige of a sit down with the President of the United States.>>
He would have to have an extremely hight opinion of himself, and completely unwarranted as well, to think that he is conferring prestige or legitimacy on a dictator by sitting down to talk to him. Most of the world's people by this point have a fairly low opinion of American leaders and their friends, and probably wouldn't award Brownie points in legitimacy to "the world's worst dictators" just because they sat down at a table with the President of the U.S.A. Oftentimes the "world's worst dictators" owe their position exclusively to the U.S. anyway, so no one who knows the score will add anything to their "legitimacy" by seeing them conferring with the Prez. Pretty soon the time will come when the world's worst dictators will wonder whether their reputations won't be further besmirched by sitting down with a low-life like the President of the U.S.A.
<<It [the campaign shield] goes to his poor judgment. His notion that it wouldn't be seen as arrogant or even shameless, as you yourself admitted, shows very poor judgment . . . >>
It's about on a par with picking a tie that's too loud, or a lime-green suit. It's a picayune error in judgment compared with the errors that led to leaving the war-making powers in the hands of George W. Bush. Nobody is error-free in making judgments, but I think by now everyone knows who made the big errors that cost three trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives and who made the small error of picking the wrong tie to wear.
<< . . . just as his friendships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Father Pfliger showed very poor judgment.>>
Yeah, let's get into that a little more. What kind of judgment did it take to get involved with that crook Charles Keating and visit government regulators on his behalf? That's not "poor judgment," that is a character flaw, like BEING CROOKED.
-
Come on. Tell me what sort of pressure Al Qaeda has ever put on the US and would therefore likely put on Obama.
They are not into pressure. They merely attack to draw support for their cause and to indicate that the US is not as hot a type of snot as they were formerly deemed to be. They basically con simpleminded fanatics into suicidal missions.
It's not a good thing, but it isn't pressure.
-
Come on. Tell me what sort of pressure Al Qaeda has ever put on the US and would therefore likely put on Obama.
You just haven't seen it because Bush has the backbone to carry out his policies despite the continual atrocities being committed by Al Qaeda.
Plane is correct. Right now it is the U.S. that is putting intense pressure on Al Qaeda, particularly in Iraq to the point where they are almost at near collapse there.
Obama doesn't have the backbone to continue this offensive in the global war on terror. He has said he would start bringing home whole brigades from Iraq at the pace of one per month, despite the ongoing success there. He didn't have the wisdom to support the surge, and he doesn't have the backbone to deal with the theat of Al Qaeda.
-
<<If President Bush did not take the aggressive action that he had after 9-11 there would have been even more attacks. >>
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
The WTC was bombed in 93. Lots of attacks since then I think we have absolutely no way to know that Al Queda would ever stop before they are too shot up to be capable.
-
<<If President Bush did not take the aggressive action that he had after 9-11 there would have been even more attacks. >>
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
Bush highlights foiled 2002 L.A. terror plot
In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11254053/
-
Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist...
How so?
-
<<In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts.>>
He didn't say any of it was due to actions that he took after Sept. 11 or how the alleged plots were foiled, and he didn't say it was the U.S. that foiled them - - it wasd "the U.S. and allies." Besides, why take the word of a chronic liar for anything?
-
Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist...
How so?
It is in reference to a racist cartoon by Pat Oliphant where he plays on the caricature of black people with big lips.
-
He didn't say any of it was due to actions that he took after Sept. 11
Yes he did, specifically referring to the LA plot and the apprehension of Hambali.
or how the alleged plots were foiled,
Sources and methods shouldn't be disclosed, espspecially to somebody who hates America such as yourself, no offense.
and he didn't say it was the U.S. that foiled them - - it wasd [sic] "the U.S. and allies."
We're not an isolationist country.
Besides, why take the word of a chronic liar for anything?
Bush has never lied. However, Obama has lied about not being a Muslim in the past, not that there's anything wrong with being a Muslim. Obama was raised a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia. He must have some problem with it because he isn't telling the truth about it. He is even going so far now as to snub Muslim groups, and Muslim women for wearing head scarves. He canceled an event at a Mosque with a Muslim Congressman for some reason.
-
Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist...
How so?
It is in reference to a racist cartoon by Pat Oliphant where he plays on the caricature of black people with big lips.
===========================================================
Birds have big lips?
Please show me a picture of any bird with lips.
Condibird is the term Oliphant uses because Rice is a supposed expert who, in lieu of acting like one, justifies every half-assed, wacko, warmongering thing that Juniorbush proposes.
The caricature does not have lips. Birds, as you might have noticed, also lack lips.
-
It is in reference to a racist cartoon by Pat Oliphant where he plays on the caricature of black people with big lips.
I don't consider them racist, any more than I would a cartoon showing Obama with oversized ears, or Bush looking like a chimp. I don't see cartoons depicting Hillary as a shrew to be sexist. Caricaturists tend to select a feature or features and exaggerate them. To each his own, I suppose.
-
The caricature does not have lips.
Then can you tell me what those things at the end of her beak are?
(http://www.kaydaly.com/po041116.gif)
-
Lips to kiss Bush's ass with and gapped teeth - both of which she has, of course, though contrary to R.R.'s claim, the lips don't appear overly large.