Well... He's not a math professor...Follow

lol?

I saw a thing on CNN today about the "Coffee Party," and I died a little more inside.

I hereby declare the expresso party in full swing.

I assume you mean espresso. "Expresso" seems like some kind of interpretive dance or something. Which I guess wouldn't be a stretch, considering the demographic.

This is the kind of stuff that puts you on the same level as Varus. The pres misspeaks. Sure, it's something the opposing party can jump on an an attempt to shed negative light. It's not however a strategy that is only used by the democrats. You heard about it on one of your biased radio stations. When Bush said something stupid I would have heard about it through one of my liberally biased sources.

Suggesting unfair or biased air time and/or coverage for one side or the other, on something that is not really news, is just whining. Do better.

Btw, your link shows me a video of some upcoming event sponsored by teaparty.org. My father-in-laws computer is really, really slow. grrrrrr.






Edited, Mar 16th 2010 2:04am by Elinda

There's a difference between not being able to name a single supreme court case and misquoting a number

There's a difference between not knowing what the VP does and using the word "******"

Yes. One says that you didn't bother to memorize a set of facts ahead of an interview. The other says you don't understand simple mathmatical concepts.

One is an error in knowledge. I don't happen to know the exact distance between London and New York. That does not make me stupid. If I were to suggest that if we flew East from London to New York instead of West that we'd get there faster and use negative fuel, that *would* make me stupid.

The latter mistake is the kind Obama made.



Hah! You must have done the same google search I did.

Palin listed the only Constitutionally granted power the position of Vice President holds other than being next in line to be President.

We're also not talking about Palin, are we? She's not Vice President, must less President. How about instead of attacking people who are not in office much less in power, you defend the guy who is? Tell me why I should go along with a plan from a guy who makes a statement like that? Does he not know what his own health care objectives are? Where did that number come from? Did he just make it up?

Look. Any semi intelligent person, about the time that "3000% reduction" starts to come off their lips should immediately realize that it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we're going to reduce the budget by "one bajillion dollars". It's the kind of hyperbole someone might use when joking around. But he's trying to sell health care and delivered the line as though it was fact.


If this was the first time he's made gross mistakes when assessing things, it would be one thing. But let's not forget when he completely misrepresented not only the scope of a Supreme Court case, but also the duration of time the conditions in which the ruling applied had been in law. He was absolutely factually wrong. It's funny how Bush got slammed for a "lie" in a SOTU speech, which wasn't a lie at all (and quite obviously so), but Obama is just given a pass when he does the same thing.


Funny, huh?

What's funny is that you're taking an obvious mis-statement and pretending that it should be taken seriously. What's sad, is that I figured at first you were just joking and making a little jab about it but, no, apparently you're actually serious about this.


Really? No shit? Why, that's amazing!




You're too funny. Sadly, it's not because you try.

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 7:48pm by Jophiel

If it was a misstatement, then why did he follow it up with a statement clearly intended to suggest that as a result of this reduced cost, you'd get money back from your insurer instead of paying it.

Think about it. He's saying something ridiculous, but apparently trying to pass it off as fact. He seems to want people to think that under his system, you wont pay for health insurance; your heath insurance will pay you.



Yes. Something any kid who passed basic algebra should know without even having to think about it.


It wouldn't be such a big deal if the Obama administration didn't already have a pretty good track record of using ridiculously inflated or just plain made up numbers to support their policies. That speech looks like an echo chamber that just plain failed to realize when the rhetoric and exaggeration had reached the "no one will believe this" level.



No. What's sad is that the crowd cheered when he said it Joph. Sad on so many levels...

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 6:29pm by gbaji

politicians are emotionless husks of people incapable of humor.

Watch the video. It's pretty clear that this was a "fact" he was selling to support his health care plan. There was no pause, no widening of the eyes in realization, nothing to indicate that he noticed that the statement he was making was just plain wrong. He rattled that off in the same manner he's rattled of dozens of other claims in the past.

If he was joking, or didn't intend it to be taken seriously, then how are we to know when he's doing this? And if we can't, then why should we believe anything he says?


At the end of the day, he's scrambling to try to win support for his health care bill. He's trying to convince people that this is something so important that they must look past their concerns and convince their representatives in the House to do something that is pretty darn risky (pass a Senate bill they don't agree with and trust that the Senate will then commit near political suicide to change it into something the House would have liked via reconciliation. It suppose it's possible that he just made a mistake, but then it's a pretty big one. I mean, where does one get that sort of number? How does it "accidentally" end out in a speech given by the President? It's so obviously bogus that one has to wonder how on earth this got in there.


The other alternative is that it was put in deliberately. They're so desperate that they figure the fallout for the "gaff" will occur after they've gotten the target audience riled up about it. I think that's a stupid move, but it's the only reason one would choose to put that wording in that speech. After all, the statement is so obviously incorrect that it should be easy to dismiss it as a mistake. Someone put the wrong number in that line. It was just a typo. Heck. I could do Gibb's job for him, it's just that easy to hand wave this away. Of course, it does the job in the short run, doesn't it? It puts out the message to his audience "Support health care and you'll get something for nothing. And I'll make the evil insurance companies pay you instead of you paying them". Doubleplusgood!


Did you notice the way they cheered when he made the "they'll give you a raise" statement? He's somewhat blatantly buying support from the population. And that's the saddest part of it IMO. Unfortunately, that's basically the entirety of the Liberal agenda so it really isn't so surprising. And he was a little coy about it. He didn't say "Support this and I'll give you free stuff". But the message was there and I'm sure his target audience got that message loud and clear.

I doubt he even realized at the time that he said it and not whatever number he had intended to say.

Take "3000%" and make it any other plausible number and you can see that the raise remark wasn't a joke.


All he's saying is that your company would be paying less in insurance and, as a result, would be potentially more able to give out raises. I think the CBO bit he's citing from is this...


So, instead of 3% lower, he said 3000% lower. Which is amusing but hardly a sign of massive liberal conspiracy unless you've spent the day painting in a poorly ventilated room.

This being the obvious conclusion to anyone with a humanoid brain. As well as being the conclusion that Occam's Razor indicates.

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 11:29pm by trickybeck