Its rather interesting that one of Obama's most celebrated skills amounts to reading. I wonder if he has any actual comprehension of what he's talking about.
I noticed that too. I guess it seems novel because of the contrast with his predecessor.
I fail to see how. Its rather well known that Bush did not (unlike you claim) actually wear a wire or read from a teleprompter. While he was hardly a great orator most of the time, a good ninety-five percent of the things Presidents talk about is worthless anyway (no matter who is doing the talking), and when Bush cared about what he was talking about, his oratory skills increased tremendously (the speeches he gave after 9/11 shows Bush can give great speeches when needed without the aide of a teleprompter).
Personally, I think having great oratory ability is generally a rather worthless skill. Its greatest use is distracting people from the reality of the situation, something a great many infamous men have used to their advantage (Hitler, Stalin, and so on). I'd rather have someone give it to me straight.
Hm, I seem to remember him wearing a wire during debates and even arguing out loud with whoever was feeding him. I must be mistaken.
Well, considering memory is one of the most fallible aspects of a human being, you probably are mistaken. If you can find anything a bit more substantial to back up your memory (you know, something like, oh, say, proof), I, and probably others, would be quite interested in it.
Dude, there was a famous photo of Dubya at a debate with what looked like a pack of smokes tucked under his suit jacket. Bush isn't a smoker but no one in the know revealed what it was, but it could have been a transmitter/receiver on his shoulder.
It is true that Bush gave some good speeches, mostly it was tough trying to figure out what the guy was saying. He is the most inarticulate of modern presidents, by a wide margin.
And it is certainly true that some great orators were bad guys like Hitler and Stalin, there have been a lot of good ones too, such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
It is always the best policy to judge a man by the sum total of his actions, if you judge him at all. Obama is just getting started. We will have to wait to see what the guy does. He certainly seems to be working a lot harder at his job than the last guy.
Oh, I see, so misshapen lumps under suit jackets are always transmitters. No, wait, you admit it could have been a pack of smokes, except he doesn't smoke. So, isn't it possible its something else (a wallet, a trick of the light, his jacket simply bunching up)? Guesses are not proof, which is what I requested. If this is the best you've got, then you've got nothing.
I would also dispute the idea that there is such thing as a "good" (morally speaking) orator. Lincoln's speeches were designed to bolster people's spirits during a war a lot of people didn't want to have (sound familiar?). As I described it before, it was employed to hide the facts of the moment (in Lincoln's case, the horrors of battle) so people would continue the fight. Imagine if Bush had Obama's (or Lincoln's) oratory ability at the start of the Iraq war. Chances are people would be much more supportive of it.
Also, the idea that Obama is working a lot harder at being President than Bush is completely unfounded bullshit. Obama has already pushed back signing important legislation and taken his sweet time on issues. As I said before, no one can make any judgments about Obama for quite some time, including judging how hard he is working, and especially in comparison to other Presidents.
I didn't anything of the sort. Go back and read what I said. But to clarify it was a rectangular shaped bulge on his shoulder, in the back. It was roughly the size and shape of a pack of cigarettes. As I said, no one in the know would say what it was.
As for Obama, what do you think the teleprompter is making him say? That he, for one, welcomes our new alien overlords? 
??? His shoulder? Well, I'm certainly no expert, but I have never seen or heard of a transmitter being worn on the shoulder. Normally they are worn on the belt (in the back under the suit jacket if its suppose to be hidden). Given the transmitter's size I would guess they could also be worn on an armband if jogging or some such, but the only thing I have ever heard of being worn on a shoulder is a gun (oh, and an ice pack - perhaps he hurt his shoulder?). Perhaps if you could find a copy of this picture, better speculation could be made, but quite frankly, none of this proves the claim that Bush wore a transmitter. As far as no one saying what it was, was anyone in the "know" ever asked? I'll go out on a limb and say probably not (talk about your conspiracy theories).
In regards to Obama, I know what the teleprompter is making him say. His speech. The point is, Obama's most celebrated skill boils down to reading. I know that disturbs his blind sheep who think he shits gold, but there it is. Its a fact, and you better just deal with it. The rest of your comment is a pathetic logical fallacy and not worth a retort.
Just for illustrative purposes for anyone reading this, here is what Gramps/Jammer are discussing:
Look, I am getting tired of saying I don't know if Bush was wearing a wire, and then hearing your reply that I am claiming that it is a fact that he was wearing one.
I am hardly one of the blind sheep and I am waiting to see if Obama really lives up to the hype just like everyone else is.
I think it is funny that Cut says Obama can't speak without a teleprompter. He seems to have spoken pretty well without any obvious help during the debates and during the campaign. The funny part is that Cut's guy couldn't speak well either with or without one, exposing his total lack of objectivity on the subject. If it was me, and I worshiped an inarticulate leader, I wouldn't bring up the fact that some other guy is only the best political orator in a generation under certain specific circumstances.
I'd just let that topic go and concentrate on something that my guy is better at, such as presiding over intelligence failures, fathering twins, invading the wrong country, lying about WMD, and letting the economy die out due to lack of oversight. You know, stuff like that, where he has a clear advantage.
Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. I said I wanted proof of MacThulu's claim that Bush wore a wire, and all you provided was speculation, which is not proof. So I never said you were claiming it was a fact (in fact, I claimed exactly the opposite).
As far as lack of objectivity, since you live in a glass house regarding Obama/Democrats, I wouldn't throw stones at Cut. You both are blind sheep, you just worship different idols, both of which have strong and weak points. This whole article is simply about how one of Obama's celebrated strong points boils down to reading, which you have been trying to defend by clouding the issues claiming that Bush might have worn a wire (no proof to back up that claim), or lied about WMD (not only no proof to back up that, Congress has specifically stated that is not true, so at this point, you are lying, Gramps), and the economy being in the crapper (which the previous Democratic President Bill Clinton has assumed the most responsibility for, so you are also lying that it is Bush's fault).
Your arguments are flawed, usually logically, sometimes factually, but still consistently flawed.
Considering the size of a standard cell phone, whatever that may be under his jacket, they clearly are too large to be any sort of hidden transceiver. That top one even looks like it might be Photoshopped (the lighting looks off to me, but I'm just guessing).
There IS no proof, one way or the other, as is the case with a lot of stuff about Bush. Partly this is due to the excessive secrecy, and partly it is due to the fact that Bush and his people have taken liberties with the facts from time to time.
Look, historians will argue for generations about the intelligence failures of the Bush era, but there is no doubt that they happened. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt if you like, or be skeptical of him as I am, but there really is no doubt on the nuclear weapons issue that Bush
If you agree there is no proof that Bush was wired, why even bring up the bulge on the suit jacket?
As far as Bush's excessive secrecy, he's hardly the first politician or President to have done so. Anyone who can remember the Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco remembers how much Clinton and his legal team tried to bury the tape recordings of him as being secret information. As far as "taking liberties with facts", I'm going to say again, prove it, or shut up.
Finally, I can't really comment on your claims about Bush and nuclear weapons, as you have apparently failed to even complete a coherent thought. I will grant you, being skeptical is fine, but you view unanswered questions, speculation, and hysteria as proof of wrongdoing on Bush's part. Ironically, you condemn similar actions by Bush against the people at Guantanamo, yet are willing to convict Bush on the same basis. Seems rather hypocritical if you ask me.
First off, I didn't bring it up, Mac did. I just made a comment.
Secondly, the nuclear weapons argument for going to war against Saddam's Iraq was always the weakest link in the Bush Administration's run up to the invasion. If you need evidence of that, go look it up. You can start with Amb Joe Wilson's NYT editorial which boiled down says that Iraq never bought or even tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger as Bush claimed in the State of the Union speech. It was a lie based on a forgery.
If you don't know that and aren't willing to educate yourself to the blatant dishonest of the Bushies on this topic, I can't really help you.
The fact is that Bush lied about this. Check it out!
No, you very clearly brought up the bulge. The implication is in defense of MacThulu's claim of Bush wearing a wire, but you brought up the bulge.
Second, and we've been over this before, there is no lie regarding Iraq buying uranium. I looked up Joe Wilson's editorial. First, an editorial is not investigative reporting, it is simply the ideas and suppositions of the author. He clearly admits to never having seen the memo you are saying is a forgery. Therefore, that claim is hearsay. Next, if you actually read the editorial, you would find out that his investigations into the sale of the uranium consisted of Joe Wilson asking several members of the government if they sold uranium to Saddam. That's like asking an accused killer if he committed murder. They always say no, regardless of whether they did it or not. In fact, Joe Wilson even admits that, while it would be "exceedingly difficult" to sell uranium to Iraq, difficult does not mean impossible. Furthermore, Bush did not reference the memo that is potentially a forgery during the State of the Union address, he referenced a British report. So you entire claim that the Bush administration lied is false.
As I have thoroughly debunked you on this before (and did it again right here), and Congress has even reviewed Bush's claims and stated everything he said were based on viable (though inaccurate) intelligence reports, you are now guilty of lying to try to justify your dislike of Bush. As far as not being willing to educate myself, well, I would say your biggest problem is that I am all too willing to educate myself. You just run into the problem that the facts do not support your claims.
Funny .. Many think that GW was one of the worst presidents and all you can do is compare Obama to him when trying to stick up for him. Obama does not have a whole lot more time to be screwing up ... at the current rate the DOW will be at 3000 by June - he has done NOTHING to encourage economic growth. Perhaps that is the plan for those that are telling what Obama to say in his teleprompter.
Don't blame me .. I voted for Ron Paul
MacThulhu
Yeah, and Dubya wore a wire for his appearances.