Republican amendment takes aim at Obama's teleprompter - Polidicks

actually political parties should be abolished altogether so people actually start voting based on merit and not party

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28149927]for the record, it goes both ways. if senate and power were republican and house was democrat, I'd be saying the same thing[/QUOTE] I've never seen a democrat take try to take funding from a teleprompter. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] Which every president since Eisenhower has used.

The Republicans are absolutely right on this one. Look, Palin's got the right idea! [img]http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandclose.jpg[/img]

republicans are clearly getting more retarded. maybe they drank juice someone put acid in, now they're just freaking out for a few months?

the republicans are all retards thats all that needs to be said

Oh look, more time spent doing nothing to fix our country.

Shows how well Obama knows what he's talking about

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;28151353]Shows how well Obama knows what he's talking about[/QUOTE] When the fuck did Obama insert himself into this? You people are idiots. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6q-f-zD4xPY/TNZXcePx15I/AAAAAAAAZvo/rMONqNcqllI/s1600/Teleprompter.jpg[/img] [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] oh boy it's like every goddamn president has used one [img]http://cousinavi.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/tele-reagan-2.jpg[/img] [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] [img]http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/3/19/15/bush-sr-with-teleprompter-7265-1237490815-31.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=TH89;28148728]-Everybody uses a teleprompter -The salary of a presidential speechwriter is [i]insurmountably higher[/i] than the salary of the aide who types it into a teleprompter -Presidential speeches are printed and passed around to be examined by White House staffers (including the President) for days before the speech is given, so you can't just "type it into the teleprompter" -Teleprompters are not designed for word processing, composing a speech on one would be a huge pain in the ass -It sounds like you are saying the president should spend his time memorizing speeches instead of running the country For the record, I can vote, but maybe you shouldn't?[/QUOTE] You misunderstood everything I said. I did not mean they sit there and type the entire speech as he talks without ever having created the speech. I don't care how much money it will save or not save. Like I said I don't care about this issue, I was clearly stating a side note that the guy who originally brought up getting rid of the teleprompter might have been thinking. Let me try again. I was saying that the speech writer, writes the speech. He is paid to write it. After it is written. When the president wants to give this speech, someone has to type this speech for it to appear on the teleprompter for the president to read it off. NOT NECESSARILY AS THE PRESIDENT IS GIVING THE SPEECH. Just to make that clear. The guy who writes the speech probably uses a word processing program on his computer and/or hand written notes. Just to clarify, since you apparently didn't understand that part. I did not imply that he wrote the speech using the teleprompter only. I know everyone uses teleprompters, again let him use one I don't care. The salary is higher, all I was saying is saving $9.50 an hour from a guy who has to port the speech over onto the teleprompter would save a SMALL, VERY SMALL, TINY (do you need any other words to understand this?) amount of money. Not enough to make a difference of course. Yes, I know speeches are printed and reviewed several times by several people. I never implied that they did the word processing on the teleprompter itself. It sounds like you didn't fully read or understand my statement. I tried to clarify it with this post. Again, as I stated in my last post I don't care about this issue. The president can read off a billboard for all I care. Read it off note cards, teleprompters, billboards, sheets of paper, the back of some bald guys head. I honestly DO NOT CARE HOW THE PRESIDENT GIVES HIS SPEECHES. I was merely stating a side comment about what this guy MIGHT POSSIBLY be thinking when he mentioned getting rid of the teleprompters. If you need me to clarify anything else, please ask. So the next time you try to attack me with a pseudo-witty post, try to read over the original post several times so you get a better understanding of it.

[QUOTE=Squad;28151485]You misunderstood everything I said. I did not mean they sit there and type the entire speech as he talks without ever having created the speech. I don't care how much money it will save or not save. Like I said [b]I don't care about this issue[/b], I was clearly stating a side note that the guy who originally brought up getting rid of the teleprompter might have been thinking. Let me try again. I was saying that the speech writer, writes the speech. He is paid to write it. After it is written. When the president wants to give this speech, someone has to type this speech for it to appear on the teleprompter for the president to read it off. NOT NECESSARILY AS THE PRESIDENT IS GIVING THE SPEECH. Just to make that clear. The guy who writes the speech probably uses a word processing program on his computer and/or hand written notes. Just to clarify, since you apparently didn't understand that part. I did not imply that he wrote the speech using the teleprompter only. I know everyone uses teleprompters, again let him use one I don't care. The salary is higher, all I was saying is saving $9.50 an hour from a guy who has to port the speech over onto the teleprompter would save a SMALL, VERY SMALL, TINY (do you need any other words to understand this?) amount of money. Not enough to make a difference of course. Yes, I know speeches are printed and reviewed several times by several people. I never implied that they did the word processing on the teleprompter itself. It sounds like you didn't fully read or understand my statement. I tried to clarify it with this post. Again, as I stated in my last post [b]I don't care about this issue[/b]. The president can read off a billboard for all I care. Read it off note cards, teleprompters, billboards, sheets of paper, the back of some bald guys head. I honestly DO NOT CARE HOW THE PRESIDENT GIVES HIS SPEECHES. I was merely stating a side comment about what this guy MIGHT POSSIBLY be thinking when he mentioned getting rid of the teleprompters. If you need me to clarify anything else, please ask. So the next time you try to attack me with a pseudo-witty post, try to read over the original post several times so you get a better understanding of it.[/QUOTE] Obviously you care enough to write out 13 or so lines of text.

[QUOTE=Squad;28151485]You misunderstood everything I said. I did not mean they sit there and type the entire speech as he talks without ever having created the speech. I don't care how much money it will save or not save. Like I said I don't care about this issue, I was clearly stating a side note that the guy who originally brought up getting rid of the teleprompter might have been thinking. Let me try again. I was saying that the speech writer, writes the speech. He is paid to write it. After it is written. When the president wants to give this speech, someone has to type this speech for it to appear on the teleprompter for the president to read it off. NOT NECESSARILY AS THE PRESIDENT IS GIVING THE SPEECH. Just to make that clear. The guy who writes the speech probably uses a word processing program on his computer and/or hand written notes. Just to clarify, since you apparently didn't understand that part. I did not imply that he wrote the speech using the teleprompter only. I know everyone uses teleprompters, again let him use one I don't care. The salary is higher, all I was saying is saving $9.50 an hour from a guy who has to port the speech over onto the teleprompter would save a SMALL, VERY SMALL, TINY (do you need any other words to understand this?) amount of money. Not enough to make a difference of course. Yes, I know speeches are printed and reviewed several times by several people. I never implied that they did the word processing on the teleprompter itself. It sounds like you didn't fully read or understand my statement. I tried to clarify it with this post. Again, as I stated in my last post I don't care about this issue. The president can read off a billboard for all I care. Read it off note cards, teleprompters, billboards, sheets of paper, the back of some bald guys head. I honestly DO NOT CARE HOW THE PRESIDENT GIVES HIS SPEECHES. I was merely stating a side comment about what this guy MIGHT POSSIBLY be thinking when he mentioned getting rid of the teleprompters. If you need me to clarify anything else, please ask. So the next time you try to attack me with a pseudo-witty post, try to read over the original post several times so you get a better understanding of it.[/QUOTE] The best way to show you don't care, is by getting angry over a wall of text. I see how much you don't care.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28151382]When the fuck did Obama insert himself into this? You people are idiots. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6q-f-zD4xPY/TNZXcePx15I/AAAAAAAAZvo/rMONqNcqllI/s1600/Teleprompter.jpg[/img_thumb] [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] oh boy it's like every goddamn president has used one [img_thumb]http://cousinavi.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/tele-reagan-2.jpg[/img_thumb] [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/3/19/15/bush-sr-with-teleprompter-7265-1237490815-31.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Obama made it into a big joke. I remember when he dragged them along to his inaugural dinner. He's always done some bizarre things with it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGLy43ry4t0[/media]

[QUOTE=Squad;28146769]Because nothing else is involved with it? It just updates everything by itself, no one has to back the thing to actually get letters on it? That is a paid salary for something that doesn't need to be paid for. I am assuming that is the issue. Sure it isn't going to fix much, but Obama has a guy writing his speeches, then has a guy put them on this thing? That is paying twice, when he could just have the guy write it and be done. And before I am attacked relentlessly by a bunch of people who can't vote. I honestly don't care about this issue, I am merely making a side note on the subject.[/QUOTE] If he didn't have a teleprompter, someone would be writing/printing off final copies of each speech for him. It's always been done that way. If anything, the teleprompter is a green alternative because it doesn't use paper; much like you don't use common sense.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28149971]actually political parties should be abolished altogether so people actually start voting based on merit and not party[/QUOTE] Damn right. Enough partisan bullshit. In 2009, a county in Tennessee I think tried to do exactly that, by removing the parties names on the ballot, but the feds intervened and told them they could not do it, because people wouldn't know who to vote for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MIPS;28154478]Obama made it into a big joke. I remember when he dragged them along to his inaugural dinner. He's always done some bizarre things with it.[/QUOTE] He took 28 of them on his European campaign trip (why was he campaigning there, again?)

[QUOTE=Squad;28151485]pseudo-witty[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Squad;28151485]I was merely stating a side comment about what this guy MIGHT POSSIBLY be thinking when he mentioned getting rid of the teleprompters.[/QUOTE] We don't need to speculate on what he's thinking because we already know. It's a stunt to get attention. The Republicans have been trying to discredit Obama as a public speaker since before he was elected. Don't post something dumb and then go "but I don't care!" as if it absolves you of responsibility for making a bad post. [editline]20th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28149971]actually political parties should be abolished altogether so people actually start voting based on merit and not party[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of assembly.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28149971]actually political parties should be abolished altogether so people actually start voting based on merit and not party[/QUOTE] I'm afraid that wouldn't work. The politicians would just divide into unofficial factions. There would, in effect, be almost no change to the political dynamic. American politics would just be made even more confusing, and look shady.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28149971]actually political parties should be abolished altogether so people actually start voting based on merit and not party[/QUOTE] Parties aren't bad, they're only bad in the US style election system where you have to get 51% of the vote to win a seat. In a parliamentary system that is used in the rest of the world, if a party gets 3% of the national vote they get 3 spots, they don't have to beat anyone in a head to head election. The reason why you want parties is because instead of trying to figure what some random guy you've never heard of is going to do if elected you can just look at the party's platform and then you know how they're going to vote 98% of the time. You pick the issues most important to you (i.e. healthcare, environmentalism, etc) and then do a straight ticket vote for anyone in that party. You don't have to dick around with finding out what each candidate personally believes.

I'm sorry Obama, but we're going to have to take away the funding for the chairs in your presidential dining room. They're going to have a chance to get loose screws now.

[QUOTE=TH89;28156609]I'm pretty sure that would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of assembly.[/QUOTE] it wouldn't impede on like-minded people's rights to assemble, but would just forbid the branding of political parties.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28162852]it wouldn't impede on like-minded people's rights to assemble, but would just forbid the branding of political parties.[/QUOTE] Political parties should of course be allowed but they shouldn't be printed on the ballot

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;28159754]I'm afraid that wouldn't work. The politicians would just divide into unofficial factions. There would, in effect, be almost no change to the political dynamic. American politics would just be made even more confusing, and look shady.[/QUOTE] but people will either have to pay attention to their candidates or vote randomly.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28162870]but people will either have to pay attention to their candidates or vote randomly.[/QUOTE] No you can't just deny people first amendment rights because you don't like what those rights cause

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28162884]No you can't just deny people first amendment rights because you don't like what those rights cause[/QUOTE] it doesn't deny any first amendment rights though.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28162903]it doesn't deny any first amendment rights though.[/QUOTE] Yes, freedom of assembly.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28162912]Yes, freedom of assembly.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28162852][my idea] wouldn't impede on like-minded people's rights to assemble, but would just forbid the branding of political parties.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28162937][/QUOTE] So there'll be "vote for us" instead of "vote republican" Your solution is terrible and not worthy of being called a solution at all

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28162944]So there'll be "vote for us" instead of "vote republican" Your solution is terrible and not worthy of being called a solution at all[/QUOTE] aren't you canadian anyway what difference does it make to you

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28163013]aren't you canadian anyway what difference does it make to you[/QUOTE] I take an interest in politics of other countries

well don't do that american politics are retarded follow korean politics or something