brexit

[SentinelSlain]

Tony Blair and Obama are boring.

 

[Dak]

In nearly every case in the video Farage is working merely from notes or off the cuff, and with an antagonistic interviewer/debater, and performs without a hitch and often at a rapid clip. Obama has very rarely been in those situations, and his patterns of pauses and inflections (with teleprompters no less) irritate, as if he assumes what he has to say is quite profound and/or people need significant time to process its depth and importance. It might be accurate to charge that he mimics the patterns of pedagogical speech, while lacking the necessary content.

 

[Einherjar86]

His pauses and inflections irritate you, Dak. But you're also very biased - you don't think what he has to say is profound, which predisposes you to dislike the inflections meant to emphasize his points. By any significant historical metric or rhetorical analysis, Obama excels as a rhetorician.

Also, Farage doesn't speak "without a hitch." He fumbled over some words at the very beginning of the first video you posted.

 

[SentinelSlain]

He just says vague positive things like all centrists.

 

[Dak]

His pauses and inflections irritate you, Dak. But you're also very biased - you don't think what he has to say is profound, which predisposes you to dislike the inflections meant to emphasize his points. By any significant historical metric or rhetorical analysis, Obama excels as a rhetorician.

Compared to Dubya or Clinton sure. But thats a low bar and we don't even have said objective bar to see anyway.

Also, Farage doesn't speak "without a hitch." He fumbled over some words at the very beginning of the first video you posted.

Yes at several points he resets or repeats when either interrupting or being interrupted. That's not fumbling. The Donald trips over his own words with fair regularity for comparison, even when speaking at a relatively slow clip.

Even if you agree with what Obama says the content is not deep or new. Data are often dated and/or general, and/or wrong.His frequent and lengthy pauses (all public speakers offer pauses but his are still noticeable by comparison) and high - low - high (as opposed to the high - low matter-of-fact delivery that seems typical to me of people more well versed in subject matter) inflection across sentences when not fairly monotone are the obvious tells for impersonating comedians and yes speaking in that way is annoying. In a less formal atmosphere (eg the Seinfeld interview) he doesn't pause nearly as much. I don't know if it is an intentional affect for a perceived dumber broad audience or a byproduct of teleprompters and the stage.

 

[Einherjar86]

His frequent and lengthy pauses (all public speakers offer pauses but his are still noticeable by comparison) and high - low - high (as opposed to the high - low matter-of-fact delivery that seems typical to me of people more well versed in subject matter) inflection across sentences when not fairly monotone is the obvious tell for impersonating comedians and yes speaking in that way is annoying.

Is it objectively annoying...? Because I don't find it so. Do I need to recalibrate my monitoring system? Or is it possible you're not an expert on rhetorical analysis?

 

[SentinelSlain]

Was Hitler objectively good?

 

[Dak]

Is it objectively annoying...? Because I don't find it so. Do I need to recalibrate my monitoring system? Or is it possible you're not an expert on rhetorical analysis?

No, it's not objectively annoying. But then again McDonald's isn't objectively nasty. I did some quick reading and Obama supposedly is using certain successful public speaking techniques. I'm not surprised that what are potentially considered "good" public speaking techniques annoy me in the context.

Liking or not liking what he has to say has little to do with it. I like Gary Johnson's political orientation more so than Obama and I'd much rather listen to Obama orate something than Johnson. I can't even finish short interview videos with Johnson.

 

[Dak]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

It's ¡SCIENCE!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

He just says vague positive things like all centrists.

You mean like this?

We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.

We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can't bankroll our elections – and if our existing approach to campaign finance can't pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.

If we give up now, then those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure.

As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don't look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.

We can't afford to go down that path.

I'm going to miss Obama. I'm still pro-Hillary in this election, but she's a fucking lowlife compared to him.

 

[CiG]

I am sorry though, there's no way that Farage is a better speaker than Obama, especially if we're talking about the early '00s and the first term of his presidency.

So someone who was a better speaker at the beginning of their presidency and went downhill from then until now is better than a man who is a consistently good speaker?

That's dumb, Obama sucks.

I'm going to miss Obama. I'm still pro-Hillary in this election, but she's a fucking lowlife compared to him.

The irony here being that shitty speach of Obama's that you quoted directly sets it's gaze on candidates like Hillary. If ever there was a corporately owned big money sponsored puppet candidate, that woman is it.

 

[arg]

i used to like obama when he started out but soon realized he's full of shit. romney should've beaten him in '12

 

[CiG]

Romney was too shit at the political game to take out someone like Obamuh.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The irony here being that shitty speach of Obama's that you quoted directly sets it's gaze on candidates like Hillary. If ever there was a corporately owned big money sponsored puppet candidate, that woman is it.

True, but she's more likely than Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice who reverses the damage done to campaign finance reform by Citizens United v. FEC.

 

[CiG]

I tend to think Bernie Sanders is a pretty good speaker, you can tell that he's influenced by the passionate speaking style of many of those around during the civil rights movements.

True, but she's more likely than Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice who reverses the damage done to campaign finance reform by Citizens United v. FEC.

That's a very weak justification for voting her in, but fair enough. We all have our personal interests.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

It's ¡SCIENCE!

People made a huge deal out of this when it happened. The debate wasn't over science, it was over the technicalities of language.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1

Firstly, "regular consumption" of water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration any more than eating a pork pie a day reduces the risk of starvation. If I drink half a pint of bottled water while running through a desert in the blistering sun, I'll still end up dehydrated, and if I drink several bottles today, that won't prevent me from dehydrating tomorrow. The key is to drink enough water when you need it, and you're not going to get that from any bottled water product unless it's mounted on a drip.

Secondly, dehydration doesn't just mean a lack of water, or 'being thirsty'; electrolytes like sodium are important too. If salt levels fall too far, the body struggles to regulate fluid levels in the first place. That's why hospitals use salinedrips to prevent dehydration in patients who can't take fluids orally, and why people with diarhhoea are treated with salt-containing oral rehydration fluids. Presumably the next big investigation at the Express will expose the shocking waste of NHS money on needless quantities of saline solution, when jolly old tap water would work just as well.

 

[Dak]

Apparently the words "reduce", "risk", and "regular" are all being misunderstood.

 

[Baroque]

Lmao, sounds like lawyers from some ivy league school playing a prank or something. No one is dumb enough to take labels that literally.

Also even if it "reduces the risk of dehydration" for a short time, it still reduces the risk of dehydration overall by a small amount. You have a finite life, part of that finite life now has a reduced risk of dehydration after consuming that water bottle.

 

[SentinelSlain]

You mean like this?


I'm going to miss Obama. I'm still pro-Hillary in this election, but she's a fucking lowlife compared to him.

Did he change how campaigns are financed?