• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sorry for disability remark

You ignored all of Hatuey's sources so I'm not even going to try to prove to you that he had it while in office, however you'd have to actually not read my posts to realize that I've now established that I believe WOODROW WILSON had the condition IN OFFICE as well.
 
Because it is a quick gesture in lowbrow public relations in comparison with a slightly more lengthy process in lowbrow public relations?

Because it's the wrong forum for the President to address the issues in the middle of a financial crisis.
 
Because it's the wrong forum for the President to address the issues in the middle of a financial crisis.

Is it? The media penetration and hip-factor alone give him a boost for being able to 'level' with the American people and explain his position. Most people are not for debate (or whatever suffices for debate these days) or 60 minutes interviews.

Sometimes the controlled lowbrow approach is what does the trick. What did not work was the gaffe. Otherwise, it was an acceptable approach.
 
Last edited:
You ignored all of Hatuey's sources so I'm not even going to try to prove to you that he had it while in office, however you'd have to actually not read my posts to realize that I've now established that I believe WOODROW WILSON had the condition IN OFFICE as well.

No I didn’t. Hatuey’s source was someone’s "projection" that Reagan COULD have had the disease as early as 1980 based on “speech patterns.” How absurd and trite. In addition, you continue the false BS by not addressing the FACT that this disease has NOTHING to do with retardation.

But once again we see the desperate defense of the indefensible and trite analogies instead of a coherent honest debate on the FACTS.

Once more it begs the question; what does REAGAN have to do with a thread on Obama’s foolish joke about retarded people?

Here, let me help you; Nothing!

Facts: Reagan was President from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1989.

He was diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s on In August 1994, at the age of 83 and he wrote his letter to the American people in November of 1994.

So let me understand this “evidence”; we have a scientists attempting to make headlines asserting that by using HIS invention of Gottschalk-Gleser scales, he can determine based on “speech” patterns that Reagan COULD have had Alzheimer’s as early as 1980 and thus proves the inane assertion you made:

the irony being that Reagan was literally the closest we've ever had to a medically retarded president since like Wilson

Only someone who willingly suspends their disbelief or intelligence can buy into your crapola.

I guess you missed the end of the “source” that hatuey posted:

“In 2006, his son filed a suit alleging that Gottschalk had lost millions of dollars in a 419 scam.”

The guy was quite the genius himself wasn’t he?

Carry on.
 
Is it? The media penetration and hip-factor alone give him a boost for being able to 'level' with the American people and explain his position. Most people are not for debate (or whatever suffices for debate these days) or 60 minutes interviews.

Sometimes the controlled lowbrow approach is what does the trick. What did not work was the gaffe. Otherwise, it was an acceptable approach.

It's easier to b.s. your way through a Leno interview. If we as the people accept this as a proper format for policy discussions we've embraced wholesale propaganda in favor of intellectual exchange. He didn't level" with the American people, he lied to them. He did so easily too as Leno isn't about to give him a hard time or question him in any substantive way.
 
Bowling_Ramp.jpg



Yeah, very tasteful on national tv. :roll:
 
.....like nobody has ever made fun of retarded people.....honestly?

I never have made fun of retarded people, and I wouldn't, but I have called people who were "normal" or things, retarded before. Retarded to me has different meanings, and calling someone retarded used to mean they were lame or silly, or any number of various things, but I never meant it as a slur against a retarded person. I don't really see why retarded has been made to mean something bad. It's just a word that refers to someone who has a very low IQ. Sometimes these people can be educable, but many times they are too slow for this to occur. Retarded just means having an inability to learn, or learn quickly enough to become independent.

Saying "mentally challenged" is for one thing too long, and it's two words. Why do we need to have to say everything in such a dragged out manner? So now people will slur you by calling you "mentally challenged". What's the difference? I don't see a difference. A slur is a slur.

Now what Obama said was not really a nice thing to say. It was too common for a President to say in public, and this is why President's don't do the Leno thing after they get elected very often. I think Bush may have gone on such a show, but he was with Laura, and the conversation stayed very controlled from what I remember, but I might be dreaming, and he never did it.
 
It's easier to b.s. your way through a Leno interview. If we as the people accept this as a proper format for policy discussions we've embraced wholesale propaganda in favor of intellectual exchange. He didn't level" with the American people, he lied to them. He did so easily too as Leno isn't about to give him a hard time or question him in any substantive way.

It's almost trite to do comparisons, but it is valuable much the same. George W. Bush did not subjugate himself to strenuous debate via the media, and neither did Bill Clinton. It's not a smart move to not exercise a degree of control over interviews. Of course it was a bit of propaganda, but that neither necessarily dictates that he lied, nor does it mean that propaganda is wrongful. This also does not stop Obama from trying to flex his intellectual or political skills with a more challenging opponent in the future, it was one gig during one night for a four year presidency.
 
You ignored all of Hatuey's sources so I'm not even going to try to prove to you that he had it while in office, however you'd have to actually not read my posts to realize that I've now established that I believe WOODROW WILSON had the condition IN OFFICE as well.

Here, I won't ignore Hatuey's sources:

The first symptoms are often mistaken as related to ageing or stress.[5] Detailed neuropsychological testing can reveal mild cognitive difficulties up to eight years before a person fulfills the clinical criteria for diagnosis of AD.[20] These early symptoms can affect the most complex daily living activities.[21] The most noticeable deficit is memory loss, which shows up as difficulty in remembering recently learned facts and inability to acquire new information.[22][23] Subtle problems with the executive functions of attentiveness, planning, flexibility, and abstract thinking, or impairments in semantic memory (memory of meanings, and concept relationships), can also be symptomatic of the early stages of AD.[24][25] Apathy can be observed at this stage, and remains the most persistent neuropsychiatric symptom throughout the course of the disease.[26][27][28] The preclinical stage of the disease has also been termed mild cognitive impairment,[29] but there is still debate on whether this term corresponds to a different diagnostic entity by itself or just a first step of the disease.[30]

Looks like Obama too can now be given the honor of joining Reagan & Wilson.

The double talk exibited by Obama in regard to AIG bonuses definitely fits the bill here, either that, or he's flat out lying. You choose.

Definitely another trait of the disease that Obama exhibits as he laughs his way through interview after interview in what he himself has described as the biggest economic crisis since the great depression.
 
I don't really see why retarded has been made to mean something bad.
We place high value on perceived intelligence and ability. You essentially answered your own puzzlement, you just haven't realized it yet.
 
It's almost trite to do comparisons, but it is valuable much the same. George W. Bush did not subjugate himself to strenuous debate via the media, and neither did Bill Clinton. It's not a smart move to not exercise a degree of control over interviews. Of course it was a bit of propaganda, but that neither necessarily dictates that he lied, nor does it mean that propaganda is wrongful. This also does not stop Obama from trying to flex his intellectual or political skills with a more challenging opponent in the future, it was one gig during one night for a four year presidency.

The only reason Leno's show exists, or Lettermans or any late night comedy program job is to promote new forms of media.

Nothing more nothing less.

Is Obama some kind of item that needs to be sold to the American people?

Obama isn't siding with the American people becoming a new form of media for the public to love, and going on shows such as these are not traits of good leaders.
 
I will admit as a liberal that if Bush had said something about the special olympics, the left would have gone insane

WOW! :applaud

In all fairness, I wish Palin would just STFU about it and not play politics with this because she sounds just as inept and pathetic as the Liberals did with their personal attacks on Bush, McCain and HER.

P.S. I did not find Obama’s comments offensive; I don’t think it is a bad thing as Obama was putting himself down with the analogy and not insulting others.
 
As a member of the left, I think Bush making a special olympics comment wouldn't have caused scorn so much as jokes about his first hand experience as a special olympian.

Yes it's all a dog and pony show. Softball questions to a large audience, etc...

I do recognize building public support as a way to get leverage in Congress to get his agenda passed though. So he is doing the Presiden't job even if it's not the way I would like him to do it.
 
The only reason Leno's show exists, or Lettermans or any late night comedy program job is to promote new forms of media.

Nothing more nothing less.

Is Obama some kind of item that needs to be sold to the American people?

Obama isn't siding with the American people becoming a new form of media for the public to love, and going on shows such as these are not traits of good leaders.

If that was the case then why have politicians come before that venue, or venues similar to it, and either announced their causes or have used it to enhance their appeal to the nation or their constituents?

Is Obama some kind of item that needs to be sold to the American people? Yes. This is American politics, and American politics in a mass media world, don't be naive and say otherwise.

"Obama isn't siding with the American people becoming a new form of media for the public to love, and going on shows such as these are not traits of good leaders."

Are you sure? By becoming immersed with the American media, he is essentially saying the American political market for American citizens is largely in the television programming they consume or the internet websites they frequent, and it is true. This is smart campaigning. Not that he should overwhelm the entirety of his administration of 4 years with it, but to hold the office of the Presidency in this day and age as 'above' appearing on a show hosted by the successor to Johnny Carson is ridiculous.

Furthermore, Presidents are awfully concerned about their image. In a television world, President Kennedy 'wowed' audiences on television through appearance and delivery. Afterwards, once elected, they carefully selected photographers to capture the 'essence' of his administration,his Presidency, and his family. Most of this was exaggerated, to be sure, but it worked. By showing some sort of mystical guy who could play baseball, go sailing, have walks on the beach, and raise a beautiful family all with a bad back (not many knew of this until later) and while being the 'leader of the free world' Americans fell in love with the guy, and it only got more intense after the man died. Early on he was concerned with image and posterity, and it worked. Nixon, if there was anyone who could be accused of being concerned about posterity, it would be Richard Nixon. Following the success of Kennedy's beach photoshoots, Nixon tried to do the same thing. The photographs seemed out of place for the man, but obviously image, once again, was a big concern for the President of the United States.

Is Obama immersing himself so highly as to appearing on the Jerry Springer show? No. Let's not exaggerate how lowbrow he is moving.
 
Last edited:
If that was the case then why have politicians come before that venue, or venues similar to it, and either announced their causes or have used it to enhance their appeal to the nation or their constituents?

Is Obama some kind of item that needs to be sold to the American people? Yes. This is American politics, and American politics in a mass media world, don't be naive and say otherwise.

"Obama isn't siding with the American people becoming a new form of media for the public to love, and going on shows such as these are not traits of good leaders."

Are you sure? By becoming immersed with the American media, he is essentially saying the American political market for American citizens is largely in the television programming they consume or the internet websites they frequent, and it is true. This is smart campaigning. Not that he should overwhelm the entirety of his administration of 4 years with it, but to hold the office of the Presidency in this day and age as 'above' appearing on a show hosted by the successor to Johnny Carson is ridiculous.

Furthermore, Presidents are awfully concerned about their image. In a television world, President Kennedy 'wowed' audiences on television through appearance and delivery. Afterwards, once elected, they carefully selected photographers to capture the 'essence' of his administration and his Presidency. Most of this was exaggerated, to be sure, but it worked. Early on he was concerned with image and posterity, and it worked. Nixon, if there was anyone who could be accused of being concerned about posterity, it would be Richard Nixon. Following the success of Kennedy's beach photoshoots, Nixon tried to do the same thing. The photographs seemed out of place for the man, but obviously image, once again, was a big concern for the President of the United States.

Is Obama immersing himself so highly as to appearing on the Jerry Springer show? No. Let's not exaggerate how lowbrow he is moving.
What made Johnny Carson that much more special?

I don't think any president should had gone on that show either, it serves the same purpose Leno's show serves. To promote forms of media that the blindfull masses will run out in droves to have.

I don't thin Nixon or Kennedy where good leader either, one of them got us involved in a war that killed over a million people and the other was a crook. Furthermore we aren't electing glamor queens to sit in the oval office and play president, we are electing leaders and Americans shouldn't be coaxed into electing glamor queens.

You talk as if being a in the lime light is good for there appearance, but why is there appearance so god damn important? That is the kind of reason why we have a bunch of nobodies in Washington that are of any ability to lead, because Americans are more worried about appearances than actual ability to serve the people.
 
WOW! :applaud

In all fairness, I wish Palin would just STFU about it and not play politics with this because she sounds just as inept and pathetic as the Liberals did with their personal attacks on Bush, McCain and HER.

P.S. I did not find Obama’s comments offensive; I don’t think it is a bad thing as Obama was putting himself down with the analogy and not insulting others.

She makes this unique because she is both politician and parent to such a child. Most people begin caring about people with disabilities once they themselves are in some way impacted by their presence.
 
What made Johnny Carson that much more special?

I don't think any president should had gone on that show either, it serves the same purpose Leno's show serves. To promote forms of media that the blindfull masses will run out in droves to have.

I don't thin Nixon or Kennedy where good leader either, one of them got us involved in a war that killed over a million people and the other was a crook. Furthermore we aren't electing glamor queens to sit in the oval office and play president, we are electing leaders and Americans shouldn't be coaxed into electing glamor queens.

You talk as if being a in the lime light is good for there appearance, but why is there appearance so god damn important? That is the kind of reason why we have a bunch of nobodies in Washington that are of any ability to lead, because Americans are more worried about appearances than actual ability to serve the people.

Johnny Carson became an American cultural icon. The "Late Show" "Tonight Show", however you wish to approach it, is an important example of American culture. I thought it would have been obvious why the American people (including your leaders) feel so attached to that venue.

So in other words, you are just saying it shouldn't be, even though the political system and marketing speak otherwise about the usefulness of such appearances. Then, once presented with historical examples of two Presidents without going into any others that controlled their image in such a way (by the way, because of the political climate in which Democrats were perceived to have lost China to communism, there was just a wee bit of pressure to keep involved in Vietnam), you dismiss them as bad leaders, to therefore keep your thesis.

Keeping good appearance is good for the politically inept and the politically swoonable, and the politically eligible voters, and it's good for posterity (ask any political historian). Having good appearance does not mean one is politically inept, it's a separate means of maintaining an agenda and a lasting legacy, and deep down, having some fun.

It's merely idealism to suggest that a politician can get by through his or her sheer brilliance of the issues, which is why I have to be amused.
 
Last edited:
She makes this unique because she is both politician and parent to such a child. Most people begin caring about people with disabilities once they themselves are in some way impacted by their presence.


Plus I'm sure she was sought out by many for her comment within minutes of Obama's remark (the media still thinks the presidential race was Obama vs Palin).

You're statement is almost 100% correct. I'm sure Gov Palin always cared (hence not blinking when told her baby was going to be born with Down's). But it's a deeper, more personal kind of caring when it's your child.

In her address to the RNC upon accepting the nomination for VP candidate, Gov Palin specifically addressed parents of SN children saying they would have an avocate in Washington. In that moment, she became a leader in many eyes.
 
Plus I'm sure she was sought out by many for her comment within minutes of Obama's remark (the media still thinks the presidential race was Obama vs Palin).

You're statement is almost 100% correct. I'm sure Gov Palin always cared (hence not blinking when told her baby was going to be born with Down's). But it's a deeper, more personal kind of caring when it's your child.

In her address to the RNC upon accepting the nomination for VP candidate, Gov Palin specifically addressed parents of SN children saying they would have an avocate in Washington. In that moment, she became a leader in many eyes.

Depending on who you may have talked to. Again, the demographic is largely liberal with regard to such issues, so it was interesting to see from my perspective how people would react to it. Teachers in special education were not impressed, and parents who also happen to get much information from teachers, or most parents who didn't like her politics, might have said "well, okay, but you are for and against ____".
 
Last edited:
She makes this unique because she is both politician and parent to such a child. Most people begin caring about people with disabilities once they themselves are in some way impacted by their presence.

I disagree; in my opinion she made herself look pathetic by jumping on the same political bandwagon as those she criticized for doing the same thing to her.

I don't know but did the media suddenly say "gee, what would Sarah say?"

She could have been a BIGGER person by calling this what it was; a big deal about nothing.

Good lord, this is a President who is spending the next three generations into bankruptcy and we're worried about a comment about his bowling being the level of the "Special Olympics?"
 
I disagree; in my opinion she made herself look pathetic by jumping on the same political bandwagon as those she criticized for doing the same thing to her.

I don't know but did the media suddenly say "gee, what would Sarah say?"

She could have been a BIGGER person by calling this what it was; a big deal about nothing.

Good lord, this is a President who is spending the next three generations into bankruptcy and we're worried about a comment about his bowling being the level of the "Special Olympics?"

Well, I disagreed with her entire statement (I never cared for her to begin with-McCain guy here-until she showed up), including the use of the word "precious" in regard to other human beings. This is why I said she is "both politician and parent to such a child" (if that was exact quote or not).
 
Last edited:
Depending on who you may have talked to. Again, the demographic is largely liberal with regard to such issues, so it was interesting to see from my perspective how people would react to it. Teachers in special education were not impressed, and parents who also happen to get much information from teachers, or most parents who didn't like her politics, might have said "well, okay, but you are for and against ____".

I don't think half of them even knew her politics. I'm not surprised that special ed teachers would not have been impressed w/a republican no matter what they say or do. It's disconcerting that some of the most close minded people in the work force are educating our children.
 
I don't think half of them even knew her politics. I'm not surprised that special ed teachers would not have been impressed w/a republican no matter what they say or do. It's disconcerting that some of the most close minded people in the work force are educating our children.

It's not disconcerting so much as predictable. The specialization of social policy naturally will show the evolution of a passionate source of people working on a new problem to eventually becoming a passionate group of people with a specific agenda and political ties or dogmas.
 
It's not disconcerting so much as predictable. The specialization of social policy naturally will show the evolution of a passionate source of people working on a new problem to eventually becoming a passionate group of people with a specific agenda and political ties or dogmas.

What's the new problem? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom