₦airaland Forum

loyika:
What is the use of a Benzema, [b]if we can get to win stuff [/b]with out these so called big players Or do we just go the route of your silly team, and get players because the Owner's kiddies love the player (A 'la the reported interest in Roberto Carlos) or the owner's former wife is best friends with the player's wife (Your purchase of Sheva). and stuff like that.

Obama was not speaking from the heart in Iowa; he was speaking off a teleprompter.

Now, second, to Martin Luther King. King did write his own material. There is no evidence that King had a teleprompter, or that he had a flock of hidden speechwriters composing his speeches for him. King was the real thing. King's words have endured because they were so powerful; they were so powerful because he wrote them and because he delivered them spontaneously.

McKren:
Sorry how does the telepromter work??

A teleprompter (also known as an autocue) is a display device that prompts the person speaking with an electronic visual text of a speech or script. Using a teleprompter is similar to the practice of using cue cards. The screen is in front of the lens of the camera, and the words on the screen are reflected to the eyes of the speaker using a one-way mirror

(Note that this is only true in principle — when the space between the lens and the mirror is covered in a shroud, an ordinary glass pane will work as a one way mirror).

As the speaker does not need to look down to consult written notes, he or she appears to have memorized the speech or be speaking spontaneously, and will look directly into the camera lens. Cue cards, on the other hand, will always be placed away from the lens axis, making the speaker look at a point beside the camera, which leaves a "distracted" impression.

Let me start by stating the obvious: Obama gives a good speech. On Iowa caucus night, however, I gave my vote for "most effective speech" to Senator John Edwards, not Obama and certainly not Senator Hillary Clinton. I usually refer to Clinton as "wooden." I'm being nice.

Why do I disagree with the herd about Obama? First, they are listening, but not seeing, what is happening. Second, Obama has yet to demonstrate the greatness of a truly powerful speaker. Finally, his "speech" is getting stale.

First, I am not a big television watcher. But on election nights I have to watch, to write, and so I watched. When Obama went on the stage to speak I was looking for something, but couldn't see it: a teleprompter. It wasn't clear whether there was prompter there. Only in watching reruns the next day was the presence of the prompter clear.

The teleprompter was an Andy Martin "gotcha" item. Whether I am on the battlefield or sitting on a couch, or even a bar, I look for the "gotcha" indication that betrays the true state of mind of the moment.

The prompter tells me a lot about Obama (sort of like a doctor diagnosing the patient, long-distance in this case). First, Obama was probably the last to speak Thursday night because he had people writing his speech. Second, and more importantly, he did not write his speech. Finally, someone wrote his words for him.

The teleprompter incident also explains for me a disconnect that some in the media have legitimately observed: that Obama delivers "great" speeches but does poorly in debates. Why? Because when he doesn't have people to write for him in a debate, his own words end up faltering. And so, Obama can deliver a speech, but he can't compose one on the fly. His words are someone else's.

And Mr. Obama, in his own way, is often as calculating as Mrs. Clinton. For example, he was the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, to use a teleprompter to deliver his Iowa and New Hampshire election-night speeches. It gave his speeches a quality and clarity that other candidates, speaking from notes or the heart, failed to achieve. But what he gained in polish, he lost in connection.

almondjoy:
Right!
Why are you still in the UK? Lead by example so we can follow. If you can survive the first year, I think I could too.

davidylan:
Just the same way she led in Iowa and was soundly defeated even by Edwards . . . and just the same way the "pundits" predicted a double digit win for Obama in NH and he ended up with humble pie.

JeSoul:
Dems are historically prone to "welfare" type programmes and providing free [/b]this and that, citizenship for illegals etc while Reps want people to work their way up. Hillary wants to give[b] free money to babies, provide healthcare for all etc. and many other dems are also inclined towards that direction. Now not that the Reps are "perfect" by any stretch of the imagination, they also have their many flaws.

buluti:
You are wrong no one has committed to numbers and a definate timetable thats the difference you can see you don't know the details. Thats what Bush threathened to veto when he asked senate to approve more funds he and the likes of Hillary insist there should be no numbers and definate time table for withdrawal. She talks of withdrawal but no commitments, you uses the clause right time.

loyika:
Well i guess you are considering the Jeb Bush factor.

doyin13:
But is national security and Islamo-fascism still as salient an issue, say four years ago.

Considering the subprime crisis-------i reckon ''its the economy stupid''

loyika:
Rudy G might get some Cons support, but i ask again, how will he get the Evangelicals on his side Those guys are fanatical, and won't support anyone that is seen as waivering when it comes to the Gay Marriage stuff (With or with out Roe vs Wade).

toshmann:
abeg wetin be W.A.S.P?

buluti:
First i correct your short sighted approach that even a fool has a website and can put things together, thats so vain we are talking about issues and i showed that to prove that he has put policies together which are coherent, if you can't be bothered to read it then don't say he doesnt have policies.

On Iraq Obama proposes a phased withdrawal with commitments to the number of troops that should be withdrawn periodically, the idea is to ensure Iraqi's take responsibility of their destiny and open other avenues to engage the iraqi's, because they don't want US troops on the ground why keep forcing yourself there, the hearts and minds can't be won.

Secondly on securing nuclear materials, again you are not listening because this area is one of the core changes he is talking about. Direct dialogue with supposed rogue states/axis of evil. He proposes to speak to them directly. You claim you are not a Clinton supporter and from your comments i guess you are republican the so called experience so far has led the world to be a more hostile place.

Finally on al-queda i wont answer that because you have listened to Bush too much. If there are no safe heavens i wonder where Al-queda would operate from. The theory of exclusion is what is feeding the extremist ideology, agreed that theres a foundation of hate in Islam but the moment Iran, Syria becomes an ally where would the breeding ground be. Look what Obama proposes is different and scares the establishment the idea of being friends with Iran and Syria is currently unthinkable and scares the establishment because the war lords would have nothing to sell.

nwando:
goodnite folks,Mr Nwando don return

nwando:
So this is now down to shedding tears abi?

nwando:
Besides Brown university what else is in New Hampshire sef?
Have the students votes been counted or did the hilary camp woo them over with iplates of Isiewu?