Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on September 07, 2012, 01:24:45 PM
-
Hahahaha, can it get ANY worse?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/07/it_s_uncanny_obama_copied_jimmy_carter_s_convention_acceptance_speech_from_1980
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We also have done something. It's amazing, by the way, when you hear it, how similar Obama's speech last night was to Jimmy Carter's in 1980. It really is kind of stunning. We'll do an A-B, side-by-side comparison and let you hear it. First we start in Fredon, New Jersey. Mark, great to have you. You're up first on Open Line Friday. Hi.
CALLER: Well, mega one-of-the-89-million [not in the labor force] dittos, Sir Rush!
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: Last night, and after listening to you this morning on the opening monologue, I realized why I love you so much. Because evidently we felt the exact same way last night. I sat down in the chair and I turned on Fox and I said, "I'm going to watch this speech even though I don't feel well." I felt so poorly that I went and took three Maalox prior to the speech. This is not a joke. I am not over-exaggerating. I did literally do that, and I sat there and I watched him walk out on stage to some of the oddest music, first off, that I've ever heard at a convention.
It was mellow. It was not uplifting. It was nothing patriotic. I was kind of sitting there going, "What am I watching?" He didn't stride out on the floor; he kind of meandered out onto the stage. He did not look like his normal, fiery self. And I was concerned. I must admit, I was concerned that if he hit a home run last night, it could have really changed the momentum of the election. He didn't do it. As a matter of fact, I think he lost the election on one line last night, and it's a line I haven't heard you mention. I was sitting there feeling ill to my stomach, and he said, "I am the president," and he stared right at the camera. He snarled at the camera. He snarled at the American people, and he said, basically, "Screw you, guys! I am the president." I jumped up out of my chair.
RUSH: Well, I remember that. I didn't quite have that reaction, but I can understand yours. The reaction I had was, "Duh! Yeah, like we didn't know that?"
CALLER: I jumped up out of my chair, Rush, and I said, "You just lost the election. You don't throw that in the American people's faces. We already know we made a mistake last time." I didn't vote for him last time, I promise you that, but those that did who are already feeling poorly about their choice, he reinforced it to them by saying, "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah! You screwed up! I am the president and you're suffering because of it."
RUSH: I can see your point. It might have served him well not to remind us that he's president. Grab sound bite four. I decided moments ago not to play this but now it might fit, because it is interesting. This is Obama from the convention last night. He did say, "I'm the president." I don't have the context here. I can't remember it right off the top of my head, but he did say it. But this was a very curious thing to say.
OBAMA: You see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you.
RUSH: What?
OBAMA: My fellow citizens, you were the change! If you turn away now... If you turn away now, i-i-i-i-if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible... Well, change will not happen.
RUSH: This is stunning! In 2008, he was The One! In 2008, he was The Messiah. In 2008, he was "O." He was The One we were waiting for! All of that. He was the empty canvas on which you could paint any picture. You could make Barack Obama anything you wanted him to be. Four years later, it's on you. Four years later, this debacle is all on you. "That election wasn't about me." This is a phony attempt at humility, number one.
But number two, he's trying to ladle this audience with guilt. It's up to them ("us," if you will) to see to it that he has the opportunity to stay president. I don't know. I found it was malaise. Let's do a couple Obama-Carter comparisons. The similarities are striking here. Here's last night. Barack Obama compared to Jimmy Carter in 1980. They're not quite carbon copies, but they are close. Here's Obama trying to cast himself as FDR...
OBAMA: The truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades.
RUSH: Stop the tape a minute! Stop the tape! Wait a minute, now. Here's another thing. All during this convention, Kathryn and I kept looking at each other and saying, "Didn't he say that if he hadn't turned this around in three years, he's a one-termer? Yes, he did say that, Maude. He said it. He said it to a number of journalists, and we've had the tape. Everybody's been airing it, by the way. It's been all over Fox. We've had the sound bite. In three years, if he doesn't get this done, it's "a one-term proposition."
Cue that to the top. Now, "it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades"? This guy hates Reagan, by the way. Here's what he's trying to convince people, that the 30 years of conservatism from the eighties gave us what we're having now. The 30 years of Reagan (with an interruption for Bill Clinton, eight years of Clinton). But 30 years of Reaganomics, conservative ideology gave us this economy with all this unemployment.
He wants people to believe, "I thought I could fix in 3-1/2 years. It's gonna take longer than that. It's worse than I knew. They didn't tell us how bad it was when I took office in 2009. They didn't tell me how bad it was. It's worse than anybody ever knew. Bush lied. He didn't tell me how bad it was, and it's much worse than I thought it was, and it's gonna take much longer than anybody thought to fix this." That's where he's coming from. That's his perspective.
Here's the bite again, in toto...
OBAMA: The truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort and shared responsibility and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.
RUSH: FDR's "experimentation" is a whole 'nother subject. Here's Jimmy Carter saying the same thing, almost...
CARTER 1980: [W]e have a memory of Franklin Roosevelt, 40 years ago, when he said that there are times in our history when concerns over our personal lives are overshadowed by our concern over "what will happen to the country we have known." This is such a time, and I can tell you that the choice to be made this year can transform our own personal lives and the life of our country as well.
RUSH: It's amazing. How do we ever elect that guy? When I hear that, I ask, "How in the heck did anybody ever vote for that?" But, anyway, you see the similarities, and there are more.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: That's it. When Obama said that he was the president, the context was he had changed from 2008. (impression) "I've changed since 2008. I'm the president!" Which, I guess, was a way of complaining that he couldn't run against himself. Because he's running a campaign as though he's not the president, not the incumbent. Now, Snerdley just shared with me a theory that, frankly, I think is a bit of a stretch. Snerdley thinks that all this talk...
For example, in the last sound bite that we played Obama said, "The election four years ago wasn't about me; it was about you." Snerdley thinks that that was an attempt to get back some of the fallout from (impression), "You didn't build that! You had nothing to do with that. You didn't make that happen." Snerdley thinks that means, "You were the change. You elected me. You were the change." Snerdley thinks that that's Obama trying to make amends. I don't think that's it at all, with all due respect to Snerdley.
I think Obama is saying, "The onus for getting me back in the White House is on you." I think Obama is saying, "It's your responsibility. I did the stimulus for you. I did Obamacare for you. I stuck my neck out for you. I did everything for you, and now it's up to you." I think the onus is on you to get him back in the Oval Office, and to keep his little (pause) on Air Force One. It's totally megalomaniacal. That's what he is. Let's do another Jimmy Carter comparison, shall we?
As you listen to these tapes of Carter, it's 1980. What is that, 30-years ago? Yeah, it's 30 years ago. I can't... (snickers) I always thought Carter was a hayseed. Anyway, we'll do another side-by-side comparison. Here's Obama, and the theme of the speech: "Referendum on their record is not an option. It's a choice between two futures." Obama's record is not on the ballot. No, no, no, no. What we have is "a choice between two futures."
OBAMA: The choice you face won't just be between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America, a choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future.
RUSH: And one of those visions we've already been living for the past 3-1/2 years, but you're not supposed to think of that. What's gonna be different if Obama has another four years? It's gonna be more misery, more debacle, more disaster, more crumbling. Here's Jimmy Carter on August 15th, 1980, at the Democrat convention that year.
CARTER 1980: This election is a stark choice between two men, two parties, two sharply different pictures of what America is and what the world is, but it's more than that. It's a choice between two futures.
RUSH: This is uncanny. This is... I mean, I knew it was liberal boilerplate. What did I tell you in the first hour? I knew it was liberal boilerplate. I knew it was liberal playbook, 50-year-old stuff. This is uncanny! Of all the people you want to go out and copy! It's like Paul Ryan said: "If we fired Jimmy Carter, why would we rehire Barack Obama?" Play these two again. Seven and eight are the sound bites. Go with Obama first.
OBAMA: The choice you face won't just be between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America, a choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future.
RUSH: And Jimmy Carter...
CARTER 1980: This election is a stark choice between two men, two parties, two sharply different pictures of what America is and what the world is, but it's more than that. It's a choice between two futures.
RUSH: "It's a choice between two futures." No, not "sutures." He said "two futures." Unreal. Sometimes, I even pause to admire myself. I said in the first hour -- and I didn't know Cookie had put these sound bites together. I had not heard these before the program started. I just knew. I told Kathryn last night, "This is liberal boilerplate. There's nothing innovative in this speech. There nothing new here. This is old, old, old. It's standard, liberal playbook stuff."
Let's do it again. It's the same 30-year-old playbook. Here's Obama claiming he put us on a path to energy independence from the evil oil companies with all of his alternative energy.
OBAMA: You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy. ...
CROWD: (applause)
OBAMA: Today the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades.
RUSH: Wait a minute! Stop. Hold it. I just can't let this stuff go by. We'll play the whole bite and we'll play Jimmy Carter, but I can't let this go by. "Today the US is less dependent on foreign oil"? This guy has shut down drilling and production in the Gulf of Mexico. He has not authorized the Keystone pipeline. Now, we've got an oil boom going in North Dakota, but we're having to makeup the oil from somewhere because he's standing in the way of domestic production. He's not permitting it. So this is an out-and-out lie.
Okay, keep going...
OBAMA: You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy. ...
CROWD: (applause)
OBAMA: Today the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades. So now you have a choice, between a strategy that reverses this progress, or one that builds on it.
RUSH: What progress?
OBAMA: We've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last (pause) three years, and we'll open more.
RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
OBAMA: But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companuies --
RUSH: Stop the tape! Stop! (singing) "Stop, stop, stop all the dancing; give me time to breeeeathe." The Hutch just called and said, "Stop singing The Thrill is Gone. If you're gonna do it, just play B.B. King. Don't sing it." This is a weird. You know, every commercial break I go to the e-mail and there's 30 people telling me what I shoulda said, or how I coulda said what I did say better -- and then the Hutch piling on. "Don't try to be B.B. King."
We have a choice of strategy that reverses this progress? What progress? Folks, seriously. There's no progress anywhere. Not as a nation. We're not experiencing progress. These people don't like progress. What do you think environmental wackoism is? It's opposition to progress. It is an opposition to modernizing things. It's an opposition to improving standards of living.
Environmental wackoism is opposed to progress. Gasoline was a buck seventy-five when this guy took office. It's close to $4 a gallon now! I guess to a lib, that is progress. That means we're using less of it. But that's how convoluted they are. They won't be happy 'til we're paying $5 a gallon like they do in Europe. "We've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration"? They may have made leases available, but they're not approving them.
Then he said, "I will not let oil companies write this country's energy plan or endanger our coastlines or collect..." This is liberal boilerplate. I mean, I've grown up hearing about how the Big Oil companies are obscenely profiting. They're destroying the coastline and they're wrecking the environment, and getting corporate welfare and tax breaks they don't deserve, and that they write the energy plan. That was the big thing. Cheney brought the oil companies in, remember, and let them write the energy plan.
Folks, I'm here to tell you, I would love Rex Tillerson of Exxon being in charge of our energy program much more than Barack Obama or any of his little statist, socialist Trotskyites running in here and trying to so-call improve our energy situation, because there's not a damned one of them that has the slightest idea what they're doing. They're a bunch of professorial theoreticians from the faculty lounge at Harvard, thinking they've got all the answers. Barack Obama and his pals could not produce a drop of gasoline if this country depended on it. There's not a one of them that would know what to do. Every one of Barack Obama's energy buddies goes bankrupt. Hello, Solyndra. By the way, one-year anniversary of them going bankrupt I think was yesterday. Okay, so I don't need to play this again. You've got it, it's fresh in your mind. Choose the path where we control more of our energy, we're producing all this wonderful oil, but the oil companies suck. Here's Jimmy Carter, August 15th, 1980, Democrat convention.
CARTER 1980: The battle to secure America's energy future has been fully and finally joined. Americans have cooperated with dramatic results. We've reversed decades of dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil. We are now importing 20 percent less oil. That is one-and-a-half million barrels of oil every day less than the day I took office. This is what they propose: to destroy the windfall profits tax and to unleash the oil companies and let them solve the energy problem for us.
RUSH: It's the same thing. It's unreal. It's the same thing, 30 years apart. It's the same speech. I am twice, three times as stymied now as to why Obama did this last night. Not only did he phone it in, not only was his heart not in it, not only was it a bad speech and no nourishment, no beef, it was a carbon copy of Jimmy Carter. You notice how all these Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths? They all say that we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil when it's time to run for office, for election, but every other time we're importing more, we're getting worse, and the oil companies are soaking us, and they're ripping us off. But at election time, they all tell us that we're depending less because of what they've done. We ought not be importing any oil anymore if all these Democrats were as successful as they tell us they have been.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I, naturally, was right. Snerdley, of course, was wrong. We have dug up an e-mail from Obama to his supporters, a fundraising e-mail, and the e-mail says: "The fact is that solving this problem is up to you. We are losing this air war right now." This was a pitch for campaign contributions because Romney was out-raising them. So they sent an appeal out to all the people on their mailing list, "The fact is, solving this problem is up to you. We are losing this air war right now." So this is, "If I lose, it's your fault." Obama's saying, (imitating Obama) "It ain't on me anymore. If you have hope, it better be in you. I've been at this three-and-a-half years, and I don't know what I'm doing, and it hasn't worked, and so it's up to you now. It's up to you save my job, 'cause I am worth it." That was the speech last night.
Okay, one more comparison, Obama to Carter. The weight of a failed presidency has taught both of them what to do if only you give them another chance. They've failed, but they know now what to do, if you just give 'em another chance, Obama first.
OBAMA: Times have changed, and so have I. I'm no longer just a candidate. I'm the president. I know what it means to send young Americans into battle. For I've held in my arms the mothers and fathers of those who didn't return. I've shared the pain of families who lost their homes and the frustration of workers who've lost their jobs. While I'm very proud of what we've achieved together, I'm far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go."
RUSH: Here's Jimmy Carter.
CARTER 1980: Let me talk for a moment about what that job is like and what I've learned from it. I've learned that only the most complex and difficult task comes before me in the Oval Office. No easy answers are found there, because no easy questions come there. I've learned that for a president, experience is the best guide to the right decisions. I'm wiser tonight than I was four years ago. And I have learned that the presidency is a place of compassion. My own heart is burdened for the troubled Americans, the poor and the jobless and the afflicted. They've become part of me.
RUSH: I'm just sitting here in stunned disbelief. Barack Obama, he coulda channeled FDR. He coulda gone back and tried to copy something JFK had said, or RFK. If he's gonna go back to the past and seek inspiration, if he's gonna go back in time, if he's gonna go back to the liberal playbook, if he's gonna go back to the Democrat Party failed ideas of the past, if he's gonna go back to the boilerplate, why pick Jimmy Carter, if you want to win? Why pick Jimmy Carter? Little did I know -- and I'm always aware when I'm right; I never doubt it -- but little did I know how right I was when I warned the people of America that an Obama presidency would end up being nothing more than the second term Jimmy Carter never had.
END TRANSCRIPT
-
That has to be your biggest copy-and-paste job, yet. You must be absolutely frothing.
-
That has to be your biggest copy-and-paste job, yet. You must be absolutely frothing.
Yeah, but unlike (ex; Benny) most I can back it with my own rebuttal.
-
Too long, didn't read
-
Seriously, Coach, who the hell is going to read that? A synopsis would help!
-
I read it.
::)
-
Seriously, Coach, who the hell is going to read that? A synopsis would help!
Its not a Dostoevsky novel, not that long.
-
Its not a Dostoevsky novel, not that long.
Pretty sure even old Dostoevsky had his own opinions and could succinctly write them up.
-
Pretty sure even old Dostoevsky had his own opinions and could succinctly write them up.
OUCH!! :D
-
Sorry Joe,you`re the man,I`m just in a goofy mood today bud! ;)
-
;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry Joe,you`re the man,I`m just in a goofy mood today bud! ;)
Well, you could just delete this post. ;D
-
I was talking about what I thought Obama might talk about in the speech while walking through costco yesterday. Telling my girlfriend that the pundits were saying it was his time to talk about what he would do in the next four years, my own opinion was that i wanted him to come out with some righteous anger directed at the house republicans. But Obama knew better than I. When he said he was aware of his failings and now knew exactly what Lincoln meant when he said "I have been driven to my knees out of the overwhelming conviction that i have no where else to go".. WOW. This president is as genuine as they come. I do need to admit, that I have up untill this week thought of Obama as a superior politician than Bill Clinton. After seeing Bill's speech on wednesday though, I was fearful that Obama couldnt top it. And in a way, he didnt. and I saw Obama speak today on cspan to an audience in new hampshire, he was trying to explain some of the issues that Clinton explained.. but he just couldnt do it in the obvious, plain terms that Clinton could. That pushed me over the edge to realizing that while Obama may be a better human being than Bill, a man more worthy of the office than Bill, he remains inferior as a politician.
-
I was talking about what I thought Obama might talk about in the speech while walking through costco yesterday. Telling my girlfriend that the pundits were saying it was his time to talk about what he would do in the next four years, my own opinion was that i wanted him to come out with some righteous anger directed at the house republicans. But Obama knew better than I. When he said he was aware of his failings and now knew exactly what Lincoln meant when he said "I have been driven to my knees out of the overwhelming conviction that i have no where else to go".. WOW. This president is as genuine as they come. I do need to admit, that I have up untill this week thought of Obama as a superior politician than Bill Clinton. After seeing Bill's speech on wednesday though, I was fearful that Obama couldnt top it. And in a way, he didnt. and I saw Obama speak today on cspan to an audience in new hampshire, he was trying to explain some of the issues that Clinton explained.. but he just couldnt do it in the obvious, plain terms that Clinton could. That pushed me over the edge to realizing that while Obama may be a better human being than Bill, a man more worthy of the office than Bill, he remains inferior as a politician.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
my thought bore you chimps? not interested in politics?
-
Coach, i have to be honest i didnt read any of that shit.
Its probably far fetched nonsense, appealing to the credulous republican minds seeking reassurance in political matters.
-
my thought bore you chimps? not interested in politics?
Certainly. But, if you can't make your point in a few sentences you have no grasp of your subject. ;)
-
Its not a Dostoevsky novel, not that long.
Yea, but the different is that Dostoevsky is fine literature. The above is not, which makes it too long to read.
-
my thought bore you chimps? not interested in politics?
No, it probably has nothing to do with this. Its probably more to do with the fact that your posts suck. I mean, coming from a guy who said he scientifically proved Gods existence lol. Yeah, like any long post of yours is worth reading.
-
Certainly. But, if you can't make your point in a few sentences you have no grasp of your subject. ;)
yes because a thesis paper is only a few sentences long.
let me go tell all the PHD students down the road at the university that they dont have any grasp of their subjects.
::)
here, let me condense my originaly comment for you
"Obama really impressed me when he quoted lincoln about being aware of his failings and having been driven to his knees out of the "overwhelming conviction that i had no where else to go". but bill clinton's speech on wednesday and Obamas subsequent failing to do as good a job of explaining the policy issues proved to me clinton was the better politician."
-
I was talking about what I thought Obama might talk about in the speech while walking through costco yesterday. Telling my girlfriend that the pundits were saying it was his time to talk about what he would do in the next four years, my own opinion was that i wanted him to come out with some righteous anger directed at the house republicans. But Obama knew better than I. When he said he was aware of his failings and now knew exactly what Lincoln meant when he said "I have been driven to my knees out of the overwhelming conviction that i have no where else to go".. WOW. This president is as genuine as they come. I do need to admit, that I have up untill this week thought of Obama as a superior politician than Bill Clinton. After seeing Bill's speech on wednesday though, I was fearful that Obama couldnt top it. And in a way, he didnt. and I saw Obama speak today on cspan to an audience in new hampshire, he was trying to explain some of the issues that Clinton explained.. but he just couldnt do it in the obvious, plain terms that Clinton could. That pushed me over the edge to realizing that while Obama may be a better human being than Bill, a man more worthy of the office than Bill, he remains inferior as a politician.
Obama has been driven to his knees by his own lack of performance.....end of story.
-
No, it probably has nothing to do with this. Its probably more to do with the fact that your posts suck. I mean, coming from a guy who said he scientifically proved Gods existence lol. Yeah, like any long post of yours is worth reading.
that was a couple years ago and i have amended my position since then. although, if one does believe that the scientific principle of causality is a valid one, then yes science does seem to indicate that a supernatural creator exists. or else an eternal causal chain does. which one seems more plausible? meh, i guess you could technically choose either one, but to me the answer would be clear. that being said, theres no proof that causality even exists in any meaningful way.
-
Well, you could just delete this post. ;D
I was waiting for Benny B. to chime in and call me a pussy or some such drivel. :D
-
yes because a thesis paper is only a few sentences long.
let me go tell all the PHD students down the road at the university that they dont have any grasp of their subjects.
::)
here, let me condense my originaly comment for you
"Obama really impressed me when he quoted lincoln about being aware of his failings and having been driven to his knees out of the "overwhelming conviction that i had no where else to go". but bill clinton's speech on wednesday and Obamas subsequent failing to do as good a job of explaining the policy issues proved to me clinton was the better politician."
This is a lifting site, Getbig, not a PHD defence. Get in; get out. You always go on about your academic career - trust me; brevity is best. :)
-
This is a lifting site, Getbig, not a PHD defence. Get in; get out. You always go on about your academic career - trust me; brevity is best. :)
In academic writing, brevity is always chosen first, especially in the science field.
-
yes and no. when working on a bachelors, professors want breadth. when working on masters they want it to be concise. then once you go on to the doctorate you have to be extremely detailed and that requires a huge amount of volume.
-
yes and no. when working on a bachelors, professors want breadth. when working on masters they want it to be concise. then once you go on to the doctorate you have to be extremely detailed and that requires a huge amount of volume.
No, you're wrong. Damn, you're stupid. You can be extremely detailed and still be concise. Being detailed does not always equate to a lot of volume.
You're not even a doctorate program. Shut up.
-
yeah. your right. your PHD thesis can be nice and short so long as its accurate. ;D
-
No, you're wrong. Damn, you're stupid. You can be extremely detailed and still be concise. Being detailed does not always equate to a lot of volume.
You're not even a doctorate program. Shut up.
Why do you even try?
His intentions are to appear educated, his actions cause him to come off quite the opposite. ::)
-
yeah. your right. your PHD thesis can be nice and short so long as its accurate. ;D
This just shows you're wrong.
When you go for your Masters you write a THESIS
When you go for a doctorate you write a DISSERTATION.
There is no such thing as a PhD Thesis, you imbecile.
-
In academic writing, brevity is always chosen first, especially in the science field.
So true. My Da's a chemist. Heisenberg's PHD was, what 8 pages!? Anyway, get the fark away from disciplinary, obfuscatory jargon and just make your point. :)
-
So true. My Da's a chemist. Heisenberg's PHD was, what 8 pages!? Anyway, get the fark away from disciplinary, obfuscatory jargon and just make your point. :)
Not to mention that most articles in peer-reviewed journals on average between 8-20 pages. Not very long when considering how long one can go on and on for.
-
Why do you even try?
His intentions are to appear educated, his actions cause him to come off quite the opposite. ::)
haha, its very sad. He is almost wrong every time!
-
Not to mention that most articles in peer-reviewed journals on average between 8-20 pages. Not very long when considering how long one can go on and on for.
Well, those 'journals' and their peer reviews, and their high-costs-to-universities will have a sea change in the near future. :)
-
Well, those 'journals' and their peer reviews, and their high-costs-to-universities will have a sea change in the near future. :)
I wonder what Tdongz would write up in order to get published. :-\ :-\
-
LOL
you guys are funny
so i googled it before checking your replies, because i knew i was reaching by implying there was a length requirement.
but the fact of the matter is that the average PHD "dissertation" at least a hundred pages long.
but yall can go ahead and keep arguing about syntax and what not ;) maybe theres some gramatical or spelling errors in my posts you can pick apart as well. ;D
-
LOL
you guys are funny
so i googled it before checking your replies, because i knew i was reaching by implying there was a length requirement.
but the fact of the matter is that the average PHD "dissertation" at least a hundred pages long.
but yall can go ahead and keep arguing about syntax and what not ;) maybe theres some gramatical or spelling errors in my posts you can pick apart as well. ;D
Please. You missed a whole bunch of points: Science: short and to-the-point; Arts: all over the farkin' place. Be the former. ;)
-
LOL
you guys are funny
so i googled it before checking your replies, because i knew i was reaching by implying there was a length requirement.
but the fact of the matter is that the average PHD "dissertation" at least a hundred pages long.
but yall can go ahead and keep arguing about syntax and what not ;) maybe theres some gramatical or spelling errors in my posts you can pick apart as well. ;D
Yes, the PhD dissertation is that long. But that is one paper out of the many you write in a doctoral program. Not every paper you write is 100 pages, you idiot. When writing a paper for a class, professors want brevity. You're talking about one paper. Many people in PhD programs also publish in peer reviewed journals. These papers tend to be maybe 8-15 pages in length.
And often, many of the PhD pages are devoted to graphs, questionnaires, etc. Sometimes graphs and questionnaires, and references can take up 20+ pages. So 100 pages of a dissertation is not 100 pages of writing. So you may have 60-70 pages in writing, and 20-30 including references, graphs, questionnaires.
So in conclusion, when you take the whole thing into consideration, most papers still require brevity, besides the dissertation.
Basically, youre still wrong and stupid.
-
there are some gramaticall errors in my posts you two are still missing out on !!!! ;D
-
there are some gramaticall errors in my posts you two are still missing out on !!!! ;D
You were wrong, just admit it. You're stupid and speak on topics which you have no clue what you're talking about.
In any academic department, especially science departments, they aim for conciseness. And you have to be concise even in a PhD Dissertation. Dissertation has a lot of volume, but what you say, you're supposed to say in concise manner.
-
Too long, didn't read
I was talking about what I thought Obama might talk about in the speech while walking through costco yesterday. Telling my girlfriend that the pundits were saying it was his time to talk about what he would do in the next four years, my own opinion was that i wanted him to come out with some righteous anger directed at the house republicans. But Obama knew better than I. When he said he was aware of his failings and now knew exactly what Lincoln meant when he said "I have been driven to my knees out of the overwhelming conviction that i have no where else to go".. WOW. This president is as genuine as they come. I do need to admit, that I have up untill this week thought of Obama as a superior politician than Bill Clinton. After seeing Bill's speech on wednesday though, I was fearful that Obama couldnt top it. And in a way, he didnt. and I saw Obama speak today on cspan to an audience in new hampshire, he was trying to explain some of the issues that Clinton explained.. but he just couldnt do it in the obvious, plain terms that Clinton could. That pushed me over the edge to realizing that while Obama may be a better human being than Bill, a man more worthy of the office than Bill, he remains inferior as a politician.
Didn't read this one either
-
chimps, google it bro, even science based dissertations are usually at least 100 pages. ;D
if you want to get into a discussion about how being concise versus being lengthy differ and when its suitable to use each.. that would be cool ! i like talking about such things. for example, being as concise as possible while utilizing key distinctions in order to set parameters and pinpoint ideas to prevent a broad range of interpretations.. these kinds of things i love. when a someone goes off on a related tangent to make an analogy or tell a short story or use some other kind of device to make a distinction or shed light on an idea that in a second does more for you understanding than a lesser person could do for it in 500 pages of talking on the subject.. these things warm my senses
You really are dumb. A dissertation is ONE paper of the myriad of papers and publications you will write in a doctoral program.
Overall, for most papers, they want you to concise and right to the point.
-
chimps, google it bro, even science based dissertations are usually at least 100 pages. ;D
if you want to get into a discussion about how being concise versus being lengthy differ and when its suitable to use each.. that would be cool ! i like talking about such things. for example, being as concise as possible while utilizing key distinctions in order to set parameters and pinpoint ideas to prevent a broad range of interpretations.. these kinds of things i love. when a someone goes off on a related tangent to make an analogy or tell a short story or use some other kind of device to make a distinction or shed light on an idea that in a second does more for you understanding than a lesser person could do for it in 500 pages of talking on the subject.. these things warm my senses
but then we have disctions that are really just completely useless, like this one:
You were wrong, just admit it. You're stupid and speak on topics which you have no clue what you're talking about.
In any academic department, especially science departments, they aim for conciseness. And you have to be concise even in a PhD Dissertation. Dissertation has a lot of volume, but what you say, you're supposed to say in concise manner.
LOL
yes, of course you have to be concise. there is no reason for you to make this point. what,, someone working on a phd would think they should say "the color is blue. we found that blue is the color. upon examination the color found was blue." LOL
-
chimps, google it bro, even science based dissertations are usually at least 100 pages. ;D
if you want to get into a discussion about how being concise versus being lengthy differ and when its suitable to use each.. that would be cool ! i like talking about such things. for example, being as concise as possible while utilizing key distinctions in order to set parameters and pinpoint ideas to prevent a broad range of interpretations.. these kinds of things i love. when a someone goes off on a related tangent to make an analogy or tell a short story or use some other kind of device to make a distinction or shed light on an idea that in a second does more for you understanding than a lesser person could do for it in 500 pages of talking on the subject.. these things warm my senses
but then we have disctions that are really just completely useless, like this one:
LOL
yes, of course you have to be concise. there is no reason for you to make this point. what,, someone working on a phd would think they should say "the color is blue. we found that blue is the color. upon examination the color found was blue." LOL
Are you in a doctoral program? No. Then shut up. How can you speak on this when you have no actual experience in a doctoral program, you idiot?
-
You really are dumb. A dissertation is ONE paper of the myriad of papers and publications you will write in a doctoral program.
Overall, for most papers, they want you to concise and right to the point.
and even in a dissertation they want you to be concise and to the point! ;D duh ! ;D if your not concise your just plain stupid ;D and thats the truth ;D but in order to address complex topics sufficiently, it takes VOLUME. no matter how concise you are. period. ;D
-
A guy in my department in grad school turned in a dissertation proposal that was over 300 pages once.
-
chimps, google it bro, even science based dissertations are usually at least 100 pages. ;D
if you want to get into a discussion about how being concise versus being lengthy differ and when its suitable to use each.. that would be cool ! i like talking about such things. for example, being as concise as possible while utilizing key distinctions in order to set parameters and pinpoint ideas to prevent a broad range of interpretations.. these kinds of things i love. when a someone goes off on a related tangent to make an analogy or tell a short story or use some other kind of device to make a distinction or shed light on an idea that in a second does more for you understanding than a lesser person could do for it in 500 pages of talking on the subject.. these things warm my senses
but then we have disctions that are really just completely useless, like this one:
LOL
yes, of course you have to be concise. there is no reason for you to make this point. what,, someone working on a phd would think they should say "the color is blue. we found that blue is the color. upon examination the color found was blue." LOL
No, you idiot. That is not what I meant. You've never written a paper in a doctoral program, so you cannot speak on this.
-
Are you in a doctoral program? No. Then shut up. How can you speak on this when you have no actual experience in a doctoral program, you idiot?
have you ever played in the NFL? how can you possibly talk about anything related to the NFL if you arent actually in it ? IDIOT !!!!!!
;D
.. by the way you better be in a fucking phd program or have already completed one, and not just considering going into one or just happen to know some people who are in one ... or else using this line of reasoning against me is really really really stupid. ;D
-
yes and no. when working on a bachelors, professors want breadth. when working on masters they want it to be concise. then once you go on to the doctorate you have to be extremely detailed and that requires a huge amount of volume.
This was your initial statement from which the argument began.
Again, you're wrong. Most papers besides the dissertation DO NOT involve HUGE amounts of volume.
-
my original statement was in response to chimps who said that if it takes more than a few sentences to say something then you dont really understand what your talking about.
i said tell that to someone writing their thesis.
then you and chimps said universities always want it short and to the point.
i mentioned that for bachelors studies they want length, masters studies they want short and to the point, and phd is back to length again. and that fact is common knowledge. debating with me about the idea of "concise" is just plain stupid. its totally unrelated to the fact of what i was saying and thats why i was making fun of you two and telling you i might have some errors in grammar and spelling as well.
if you ever want to actually have a conversation of substance let me know, jackass. ;D
-
Just dusted off my MA. 224 pages. If I had more time, it would have been a quarter as long. What a blabber-mouth. :-\
-
my original statement was in response to chimps who said that if it takes more than a few sentences to say something then you dont really understand what your talking about.
i said tell that to someone writing their thesis.
then you and chimps said universities always want it short and to the point.
i mentioned that for bachelors studies they want length, masters studies they want short and to the point, and phd is back to length again. and that fact is common knowledge. debating with me about the idea of "concise" is just plain stupid. its totally unrelated to the fact of what i was saying and thats why i was making fun of you two and telling you i might have some errors in grammar and spelling as well.
if you ever want to actually have a conversation of substance let me know, jackass. ;D
Um, no, in a PhD program they do not want length. This is not common knowledge because you're wrong. I know from first hand experience. Plain and simple.
History papers may want length, or art papers. But scientifically oriented papers are usually much shorter than a history or philosophy or art paper.
-
my original statement was in response to chimps who said that if it takes more than a few sentences to say something then you dont really understand what your talking about.
i said tell that to someone writing their thesis.
then you and chimps said universities always want it short and to the point.
i mentioned that for bachelors studies they want length, masters studies they want short and to the point, and phd is back to length again. and that fact is common knowledge. debating with me about the idea of "concise" is just plain stupid. its totally unrelated to the fact of what i was saying and thats why i was making fun of you two and telling you i might have some errors in grammar and spelling as well.
if you ever want to actually have a conversation of substance let me know, jackass. ;D
Hehe. Like a recruit lecturing a war veteran about man's savagery. ;D
-
Most good journals in my field limit you to a few thousand words (~ 6-8 pages) at most.
-
Most good journals in my field limit you to a few thousand words (~ 6-8 pages) at most.
Exactly. Tdonzg keep saying they want volume and length. I know quite a few PhD students who have published 8-12 page papers in peer reviewed journals and have written papers similar in length.
Tdongz is dumb as dog shit.
-
Most good journals in my field limit you to a few thousand words (~ 6-8 pages) at most.
Grapefruit Monthly? ;D
-
Grapefruit Monthly? ;D
Better Homes & Gardens
-
Exactly. Tdonzg keep saying they want volume and length. I know quite a few PhD students who have published 8-12 page papers in peer reviewed journals and have written papers similar in length.
Tdongz is dumb as dog shit.
Tbombs is a pretty big fan of "volume and length" if you catch my meaning.
-
Tbombs is a pretty big fan of "volume and length" if you catch my meaning.
Oh, I catch your meaning loud and clear :-X :-X
-
Oh, I catch your meaning loud and clear :-X :-X
what else do you catch of his?
-
what else do you catch of his?
Since it's hulkotron, whatever he wants to throw at me :o :o