Look at McCain. He is a lunatic that looks possessed.

youngdan wrote:

How about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOoot6NhkgU

That sort of mistake gives you a bit of an insight. You would think they could at least change a few sentences around, but glad they didn't.

Once again I have been proved right and Papal Kmight as usual is completely wrong.

Obama is only in 3 days and he has already begun to turn the press against him. He is axactly like Deval Patrick. Within 3 days everyone knew electing him governor was a bad mistake as well.

Obama is a lightweight with a swelled head.

But on to important things. What is Obamas priorities. He is closing Gitmo. This is for the brain dead whe never heard of rendition flights to torture shops worldwide.

Then his priority is abortion. Not in the US but globally. Now some racists might think it is a great idea to abort 20 million black babies in Africa or 5 million Chinese.

Now it is as simple as this. I do not want to be forced to suck out the brains of black babies, I do not want to be forced to pay for Chinese babies to have their arms ripped off. I do not want introduce a toxic solution to burn a white baby to death and to be dissolved.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/869911.html

Here are the details because the fools who pushed this puppet on to us will not believe it.

Now next week the same dolt will be looking for Billion for Aids so that the Africans can ride on another to death and beyond. No mention of Malaria that kills millions. No keep them riding till their flutes disintegrate while Merch gets 50 billion.

Millions of suckers have been taken for a ride by Slick O Bama(SOB for short)

The gameplan is to empty Africa of every single Black, White and Mulatto

youngdan wrote:

Neither of them. Just like Obama does not write his speeches. They are just puppets for the men behind the scenes

Only a superficial fool high on opinions but short on facts, like yourself, would no so little about how speeches are written.

Government figures do not entirely write their speeches - heads of government simply don't have the time. A 10 minute speech will go through on average 5 rewrites and run to 2100 words. In a ministerial or presidential calendar 5-10 speeches may be given in a week. They simply don't have the space time. A major speech may go through 20 rewrites, with different sections being tweaked up until delivery.

What happens is simple:

The speech-writer discusses each speech with the speaker for a couple of minutes, to establish what tone they want to adopt, what they want to say, what they don't want to say, etc. They then work on a first draft, which they then clean, polish, give a read through and if it doesn't work bin and start again. When they have the first major draft ready it goes for appraisal to a senior staffer or more for their comments.

A tweaked second or third draft then goes to the person making the speech. They do a read through, decide whether they like it, don't like it, or want it rewritten. If they have time they write down their ideas, phrases, etc and they are included in a new draft. Before the final version is finished, it does back to the speaker who very often will make substantial changes. On key speeches the speaker and chief speechwriter may work to polish the final draft together. Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell once spent three days writing and re-writing a speech, with suggestions and phrases suggested by Neil Kinnock, Derry Irvine and others. Only when the speaker is happy with the finished product is it signed off on and telepromptered.

An experienced speech writer will be able to master the rhythm and structure of the speaker's speaking pattern and write a text that matches the speaker's needs. They will also know how to use the clap trap (making three points in a rising crescendo that a listener will instantly respond to by clapping, hence a clap trap. Two points is too short. Four is too long. Three is the optimal amount). They will also need to know the speaker's speed of delivery. Tony Blair was 110 wpm. David Cameron is 125. Gordon Brown is 120. Barack Obama is 100 wpm. So they will know that a 10 minute speech for Obama will involve 8 minutes of speaking and 2 of applause, so they need to write 800 words.

In inauguration speeches the president-elect always has to approve the text, and will have written chunks of it which the speech-writer will build around. Obama, Clinton and Kennedy both were/are literate themselves and so contribute(d) a lot to major speeches, while Reagan contributed 'polishing' to match his speaking style. Neither Bush contributed much, and when GWB ad-libbed it stuck out like a sore thumb because it was garbled nonsense, such as "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream","Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country" and "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." His speech writers dreaded when they saw him take out a piece of paper with his own bits to add in, or worse still start ad-libbing, because they knew it would be embarrassing.

People who work in politics or have ever written speeches know how they are written. People who have never written a speech or worked in politics, don't. It is no surprise that in this as with almost everything else, young dan is clueless.

Papal

People who have been in debating societies know that it is next to impossible for two people to come up with the same speech word for word.

Squire. You don't know Papal as well as some others here so let me enlighten you.

Papal no more watched the 2 videos of the Canadian and Australian leaders give the exact same speech word for word than Cheney hurt his back lifting a box. Nine times out of 10 he will come back and write reams of horseshythe saying nobody knows anything but himself. He is unaware that the video just shows that he is talking twaddle and it really is a great laugh for everyone else who knows what the craic is.

He was at his best for the american primaries where he had Rudy winning by all sorts of antics and never before tried strategies right up to the point where Rudy had to pull out. Entertainment of the highest order. Seasoned posters put money on the opposite to what he predicts for easy money. I myself had a few bob on Obama and Lisbon NO thanks to him but went with Paul and Romney on the republican side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOoot6NhkgU

Have a look now Papal and partake of the joke like everyone else

youngdan wrote:

Squire. You don't know Papal as well as some others here so let me enlighten you.

Papal no more watched the 2 videos of the Canadian and Australian leaders give the exact same speech word for word than Cheney hurt his back lifting a box. Nine times out of 10 he will come back and write reams of horseshythe saying nobody knows anything but himself. He is unaware that the video just shows that he is talking twaddle and it really is a great laugh for everyone else who knows what the craic is.

He was at his best for the american primaries where he had Rudy winning by all sorts of antics and never before tried strategies right up to the point where Rudy had to pull out. Entertainment of the highest order. Seasoned posters put money on the opposite to what he predicts for easy money. I myself had a few bob on Obama and Lisbon NO thanks to him but went with Paul and Romney on the republican side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOoot6NhkgU

Have a look now Papal and partake of the joke like everyone else

Unlike youngdan I actually know about politics from the inside. His 'experience' consists of reading the internet, reading conspiracy theory websites and listening to shock jocks. :lol! BTW I didn't predict Rudy would win. I said if he got the nomination he would be the strongest GOP candidate capable of winning swing voters. As usual dan is spinning more myths. He predicted unambiguously that Ron Paul ( ) would win the GOP nomination and a landslide victory in the presidential election. When Paul, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about politics expected, bombed, first dan claimed that he had been robbed of victories, then reluctantly switched to Romney having spent the previous couple of months ridiculing him. He was wrong about him too, just as he was wrong about supposed scandals erupting about McCain, Obama, Clinton and others. About the only thing he got right was the scandal about Edwards, and even then it was after the National Enquirer published it.

He also claimed how the Bush administration was going to impose martial law in the US and had bought coffins to prepare for people killed. The coffins in reality were bought to be on standby for any natural disasters, because with Hurricane Katrina there was a shortage of coffins for use to hold bodies, leading to the pollution of water as bodies decayed. A report recommended thousands of sealable plastic coffins be bought and kept at an airport base for transportation to a natural disaster to hold bodies and prevent the spread of disease. Typically, the conspiracy theorists so beloved of young dan saw pictures of the coffins and concluded that Bush was going to declare martial law and kill thousands. It is a classic example of ignorant paranoia of the far right in the US. Young dan, as usual, fell for it, as he falls for most things.

Lads

as far as I know: it was OBAMA who was elected not
Hillary
Ron Paul
John McCain
John Kerry
Romney
Kucinich

or however you spell their names.

There's plenty of diskspace on this server if ye want open a nostalgia thread on who went, who should have won, who lost.

This is classic Papal just like the old days.

Veteran posters will immediatey recognise that as always he totally ignores that he has been fooled by the two identical speeechs made on 2 different continents. He will never admit to be wrong or God forbid looking foolish

Then 9 times out of 10 he returns with more reams of type. One part truth and 5 parts fantasy.

I have a good mind to post his comments from the time but it was a different site etc.

So here is the truth. He had Rudy and Hillary nominated from the start.

I as can be seen am a Paulite and am very happy with the way the Paulites are progressing. Dissappointed with the election but happy that he got 1.3 million votes.

I liked Romney and he was a local guy with whom I am well familiar. There were 2 things that I didn't like though and that was how he threw Larry Craig under the bus and how he pushed homosexuality. Needless to say Papal took offence to this. I lost money to Paddy Power on both these 2 candidates.

Now what he is talking about coffins and martial law is beyond me and he seems to be confusing me with some other posters who said the election would never be held.

It never occurs to Papal that if I thought there would be no election I would not be giving money to Paddy Power now would I.

Yah, Papal is one of a kind.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Lads

as far as I know: it was OBAMA who was elected not
Hillary
Ron Paul
John McCain
John Kerry
Romney
Kucinich

or however you spell their names.

There's plenty of diskspace on this server if ye want open a nostalgia thread on who went, who should have won, who lost.

You... you forgot Mike Huckabee! How could you?!

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Lads

as far as I know: it was OBAMA who was elected not
Hillary
Ron Paul
John McCain
John Kerry
Romney
Kucinich

or however you spell their names.

There's plenty of diskspace on this server if ye want open a nostalgia thread on who went, who should have won, who lost.

You... you forgot Mike Huckabee! How could you?!

Who ?? I think there was some fella called Rolf Vader too but don't confuse me any further than that.

How could you forget the lad that ate squirrels. He came in 2nd ahead of Romney and then Paul.

Way down the list came Papal pal Rudy and Tom Tancredo and 2 Thompsons

There was also some fella who wasn't very good at the spellings ..

Papal

Given your experience how do you think two people in different countries can come up with the exact same speech word for word?

I admire the talent that goes into writing a good speech, one that taps into the psyche of those listening, but I have never considered clairvoyance a possible attribute of the scribe.

Don't hold your breath there Squire waiting for Papal. As I said he is predictable. He will no more answer your question that he will admit that Hillary Clinton has a big butt.

Looks like Obama has hit the ground running alright - in Pakistan with missiles. Washington Post story...

Quote :

2 U.S. Airstrikes Offer a Concrete Sign of Obama's Pakistan Policy

Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.

Washington Post

Also
Obama's first weekly youtube address as President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUAkuMvO6uk

5 mins

In one of the first White House press conference (what do you call those daily briefings) Obama's spokesman was asked about the first air strike and made a joke about not discussing it and moved on. A journalist asked a bit incredulously "does that mean you're not going to answer any questions about operational matters?"....

Cactus

Seems new figure head, but business as usual? If they want to end the ever so convenient 'war on terror' they would do well to follow the money trail.

But then again globally such considerations seem to have paths that mainly lead back to themselves. I wonder if they truely regard anyone as allies?

Squire wrote:

Cactus

Seems new figure head, but business as usual? If they want to end the ever so convenient 'war on terror' they would do well to follow the money trail.

But then again globally such considerations seem to have paths that mainly lead back to themselves. I wonder if they truely regard anyone as allies?

I was just listening to an economist called Michael Hudson who said that when he was in Saudi Arabia in the 70s they told him that the Americans had told them they could charge what they like for oil, so long as they recycled the money in dollars. If they did not, that would be considered an act of war. Hudson himself American described it as a system of "financial warfare". For a long time we had a dominant US economy that no one could face down. They are stacking up a trillion dollars a year and they have the rest of the world locked into this system. Merkel and Sarkozy have said this week that the US can no longer enforce terms, and that there must be a "financial UN" with global regulation. The prospect is either that the US-EU breach will get deeper, or the EU will capitulate and we will have a collection of impoverished US client states, as is shaping up in Eastern Europe.

An interesting discussion on Obama's measures here involving Hudson and Klein. Hudson has written a lot about the "real economy", fictitious wealth and how increasing credit can't possibly solve the crisis, although he doesn't go into that here: (there is audio or visual as well as a text version).

Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson Dissect Obama’s New Economic Team & Stimulus Plan
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/25/naomi_klein_robert_kuttner_and_michael

Squire wrote:

Papal

Given your experience how do you think two people in different countries can come up with the exact same speech word for word?

I admire the talent that goes into writing a good speech, one that taps into the psyche of those listening, but I have never considered clairvoyance a possible attribute of the scribe.

It is very simple really. A speech-writer may be asked to write speeches on a range of topics (Obama's main speechwriter will no doubt be asked to write about global warming, Iraq, US-EU relations, the World Bank, the Middle East, abortion, etc). If you get a topic that you haven't a clue about, often the first thing you do is google the topic for other speeches, not to copy them but to get a feel for how others talk about the topic, do they use affirming or scolding language? Do they use local, national or international context? Do they personalise or bureaucratise the topic, etc? Sometimes however the same language or close to the same may end up used. It may be deliberate - a speechwriter is knackered, its 2am, the bridge section of the speech just isn't working, the new baby is screaming and their headache is pounding, and they decide 'fuck it. I'll nick those couple of lines from X's speech. No one will notice'. Other times it is accidental. Writers, like musicians, artists etc rely on inspiration and it is all too easy for someone to think that what they are writing is some brilliant new idea that has come from their own inspiration, only to find that it isn't their inspiration but their memory - they are remembering something from one of the many things they read. Back in the 1970s one rock band I remember told the story on the Late Late Show about the guitarist coming in one morning hyper saying 'Jesus, guys. Wait to you hear what I composed.' He played it. They loved it. But one of the guys was puzzled, thinking that it reminded him of something. He had a hunch, went to his father's house, put on an LP and heard the same melody, from the second movement of Beethoven's sixth symphony. When he told the guitarist he kept saying 'but I never have listened to Beethoven.' It turned out there was a simple explanation. They had recorded an album a year before. In the next studio the RSO were recording a collection of Beethoven's symphonies. He'd heard part of one of it in the box with the producers, it had stuck in his mind, and quite innocently, when he started off composing his melody his memory reminded him of the harmonies Beethoven had constructed. But the Beethoven had used some structures composed by Purcell, who was also used by Queen, Fatboy Slim and even The Who.

Words and ideas, like music, get reused either deliberately or accidentally. So it is quite normal for similar phrases, and even similar sections to appear in different speeches by different people. Joe Biden in his presidential bid in 1988 used a paragraph based on something said from Neil Kinnock in the UK. Charles Haughey reused a phrase used by Helmut Kohl. Winston Churchill used a phrase by David Lloyd George, while Pope John Paul II used language in a speech reminiscent of something said by Robert Kennedy. Sometimes it is deliberate. Sometimes it is accidental. Sometimes the speechwriter thinks it is their own inspiration that delivered a killer phrase, only to realise later that it was their memory dredging up a quote they read somewhere. I noticed in a speech I wrote about a month ago that I had re-used a chunk almost word-for-word from a speech I had written for an MEP three years ago. Luckily I had spotted it in time. (I have a policy of sleeping on a speech rather than sending it when it is finished, and then the next morning reading it and then speeches on similar topics to see have I accidentally repeated something. My work colleagues know if I have repeated something because for some reason my response is always "oh cunt". I have no idea where that came from, but I seem to say it. I had used the same line "History is something we should learn from, not be trapped in" twice and the first time it had been picked up in the media so I could not use it again.)

Squire wrote:

Cactus

Seems new figure head, but business as usual? If they want to end the ever so convenient 'war on terror' they would do well to follow the money trail.

But then again globally such considerations seem to have paths that mainly lead back to themselves. I wonder if they truely regard anyone as allies?

Pakistan is in a state of collapse and paralysis. The IMF is being called in, the state hardly has the money to pay the army, and there are rumours of an impending coup. Pakistan is rapidly on the route to becoming a new Somalia, except one with nuclear weapons. At this stage if suspected bombers are in Pakistan, any country is going to have to launch their own attacks. Asking Pakistan to do something about terrorists in Pakistan is about as pointless as asking Anglo-Irish Bank for a loan or Brian Cowen about sobriety. Obama was correct to launch the attack. That is his job.

Papal Knight wrote:

Asking Pakistan to do something about terrorists in Pakistan is about as pointless as asking Anglo-Irish Bank for a loan or Brian Cowen about sobriety.

or Papal knight about reality.
Someone should do something about this spineless eejit before he says something we all regret.

tonys wrote:

Papal Knight wrote:

Asking Pakistan to do something about terrorists in Pakistan is about as pointless as asking Anglo-Irish Bank for a loan or Brian Cowen about sobriety.

or Papal knight about reality.
Someone should do something about this spineless eejit before he says something we all regret.

What's going on in Pakistan though does anyone know at all ? The fact that they do have nukes could make all this Anglo stuff and worse look like a farmer's fight out of a Paddy Kavanagh poem.

Obama was making noises about this Pakistan stuff long ago but I don't really know what it's about to be honest. Is it radical Muslim tribes that are threatening to take over and turn it into another Afghanistan ?

Papal Knight wrote:

Squire wrote:

Papal

Given your experience how do you think two people in different countries can come up with the exact same speech word for word?

I admire the talent that goes into writing a good speech, one that taps into the psyche of those listening, but I have never considered clairvoyance a possible attribute of the scribe.

It is very simple really. A speech-writer may be asked to write speeches on a range of topics (Obama's main speechwriter will no doubt be asked to write about global warming, Iraq, US-EU relations, the World Bank, the Middle East, abortion, etc). If you get a topic that you haven't a clue about, often the first thing you do is google the topic for other speeches, not to copy them but to get a feel for how others talk about the topic, do they use affirming or scolding language? Do they use local, national or international context? Do they personalise or bureaucratise the topic, etc? Sometimes however the same language or close to the same may end up used. It may be deliberate - a speechwriter is knackered, its 2am, the bridge section of the speech just isn't working, the new baby is screaming and their headache is pounding, and they decide 'fuck it. I'll nick those couple of lines from X's speech. No one will notice'. Other times it is accidental. Writers, like musicians, artists etc rely on inspiration and it is all too easy for someone to think that what they are writing is some brilliant new idea that has come from their own inspiration, only to find that it isn't their inspiration but their memory - they are remembering something from one of the many things they read. Back in the 1970s one rock band I remember told the story on the Late Late Show about the guitarist coming in one morning hyper saying 'Jesus, guys. Wait to you hear what I composed.' He played it. They loved it. But one of the guys was puzzled, thinking that it reminded him of something. He had a hunch, went to his father's house, put on an LP and heard the same melody, from the second movement of Beethoven's sixth symphony. When he told the guitarist he kept saying 'but I never have listened to Beethoven.' It turned out there was a simple explanation. They had recorded an album a year before. In the next studio the RSO were recording a collection of Beethoven's symphonies. He'd heard part of one of it in the box with the producers, it had stuck in his mind, and quite innocently, when he started off composing his melody his memory reminded him of the harmonies Beethoven had constructed. But the Beethoven had used some structures composed by Purcell, who was also used by Queen, Fatboy Slim and even The Who.

Words and ideas, like music, get reused either deliberately or accidentally. So it is quite normal for similar phrases, and even similar sections to appear in different speeches by different people. Joe Biden in his presidential bid in 1988 used a paragraph based on something said from Neil Kinnock in the UK. Charles Haughey reused a phrase used by Helmut Kohl. Winston Churchill used a phrase by David Lloyd George, while Pope John Paul II used language in a speech reminiscent of something said by Robert Kennedy. Sometimes it is deliberate. Sometimes it is accidental. Sometimes the speechwriter thinks it is their own inspiration that delivered a killer phrase, only to realise later that it was their memory dredging up a quote they read somewhere. I noticed in a speech I wrote about a month ago that I had re-used a chunk almost word-for-word from a speech I had written for an MEP three years ago. Luckily I had spotted it in time. (I have a policy of sleeping on a speech rather than sending it when it is finished, and then the next morning reading it and then speeches on similar topics to see have I accidentally repeated something. My work colleagues know if I have repeated something because for some reason my response is always "oh cunt". I have no idea where that came from, but I seem to say it. I had used the same line "History is something we should learn from, not be trapped in" twice and the first time it had been picked up in the media so I could not use it again.)

See what I mean Squire. Papal will absolutely refuse to watch the two speechs and he returns with reams of bullscour. He says paragraphs are similiar when the same person writes different speechs. Well no shit Sherlock. The 2 speechs are not similiar Papal they are word for word exact in their entirety.

Even a dunce knows it is the same speach written by one individual.

Papal is always good for a laugh

Official NATO line, youngdan ?