posted
"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... won't get fooled again..." Gotta love a prez that quotes The Who. Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the extent that muddled speech is an indicator of a muddled mind, this is pretty awful. I do not know how large that extent is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man did not know that the speech he was about to give, which no doubt had been widely discussed for months in the White House, was called The State of the Union Address. If he is not capable of remembering that, I wonder what else he forgets on a daily basis. And furthermore, one of the key roles that a president, prime minister, or other public governmental figure fills is that of speechmaker. The man is clearly incapable of fulfiling this role. Now, if he were otherwise competent, this might be an annoying but mildly endearing trait. But he's just dreadful at his job all around.
I didn't care for Reagan either, but at least the man could write. I'm very hard put to think of anything I find admirable about Bushie.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have known very intelligent people who have no trouble speaking properly under normal circumstances, but have trouble during public speaking. I have had some highly-educated professors who misspell words on the chalkboard and make grammatical mistakes during lectures. They only do it when in front of an audience. This has nothing to do with their intelligence. Some people just have difficulty in front of audiences. They spontaneously forget things that they would never forget in a regular conversation. The brain operates differently during public speaking, than in normal speaking.
I am a therapist, and when I speak to individuals or families during sessions, I am very aware of each individual's spoken and body language. I also have a very good memory of what I, and clients, say during session. But I have also had a lot of public speaking experience, including a class on it. When I am speaking to an audience, my entire way of communicating is different. I am not aware of individuals in an audience, even when I look directly at them. I also forget over 50% of what I spoke on. It's almost like my mind is producing speech more automatically than usual. I am also more prone to speak incorrectly and not even be aware of it, when I normally would be very aware of it in normal conversation. The mind is in a different communication mode when public speaking. I'm not saying all people have this experience when public speaking, but many do.
You can argue the President's intelligence in other ways, but to base it on frequent public speaking mistakes proves nothing. If we used that line of reasoning, a lot of intelligent people would be labeled as stupid. I still remember when Dan Quayle misspelled POTATO, because of the media hype and criticism that followed. The man will go to his grave with that mistake attached to his identity. How immature is that?
Muddled speech can reflect a muddled mind just as likely as not.
Now I enjoy having a good laugh looking at that video clip, mostly because Bush is able to laugh at himself when he catches himself making a mistake. But I don't judge is intelligence because of it. He just needs to work on his public speaking skills.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite Dan Quayle quote was "the real question for 1988 is where we're going to go forward to tomorrow, or past to the...to the back". You can hear the moment when he realizes he's screwed up the soundbite, and then decides to just soldier through.
That's one that doesn't show any particular lack of intelligence--anybody can get tongue-tied. Other Quayle quotes like "Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here." do suggest a certain lack of intelligence, to me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I dunno if he and Nancy Reagan and a host of other people were lying (and I imagine they easily could have been) but yes, Rivka, he and those surrounding him do claim that he wrote at least some of his own speeches. And there is some evidence for the truth of it as well.
posted
This kind of post is just silly and trouble making. Everybody knows that GWB is an ignorant moron, and this sort of shameless rubbing it in only makes his supporters sad. Let them have their illusions for another two years. Most of them can't sleep at night for the wracking guilt of electing such a clearly unqualified idiot. I, for one, feel bad for them, and think we should give them a break.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They'll get their break when a democrat is elected president, until then, it's a constant lesson that needs to be taught over and over.
Thankfully, Bush seems hellbent on teaching America everyday about the ills of electing an unqualified buffoon as their president.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most of them can't sleep at night for the wracking guilt of electing such a clearly unqualified idiot.
I would vote the same way again, and how would you know how most people sleep at night? I happen to sleep perfectly well at night...except when I play too much Battle for Middle Earth 2 and have constant dreams all night where I'm actually on the battlefield. Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I would vote the same way again, and how would you know how most people sleep at night?
I'm encouraged to spy on other citizens without legal repercussions in order to prove that I, and they, love America and hate terrorists.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Thankfully, Bush seems hellbent on teaching America everyday about the ills of electing an unqualified buffoon as their president.
Its so true. He really doesn't let us forget, decision after decision, how dumb his supporters were for, well, supporting him.
Its like Nixon or Taft, a President virtually everyone has to admit was a wildly stupid decision- and they made that same choice twice!!!
Worst. President. Ever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That's one that doesn't show any particular lack of intelligence--anybody can get tongue-tied. Other Quayle quotes like "Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here." do suggest a certain lack of intelligence, to me.
And there was the whole thing he did about saying he wished he'd learned Latin in school so he could speak to Latin Americans in their own language. I always thought that was some speechwriter with a grudge against Quayle who had to be responsible for that one. No one could really be that dumb.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This kind of post is just silly and trouble making. Everybody knows that GWB is an ignorant moron, and this sort of shameless rubbing it in only makes his supporters sad. Let them have their illusions for another two years. Most of them can't sleep at night for the wracking guilt of electing such a clearly unqualified idiot. I, for one, feel bad for them, and think we should give them a break.
I voted for him in 2004. If I could go back to November 2004 and vote again... I'd vote for him again.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That's one that doesn't show any particular lack of intelligence--anybody can get tongue-tied. Other Quayle quotes like "Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here." do suggest a certain lack of intelligence, to me.
And there was the whole thing he did about saying he wished he'd learned Latin in school so he could speak to Latin Americans in their own language. I always thought that was some speechwriter with a grudge against Quayle who had to be responsible for that one. No one could really be that dumb.
Did he really say that? I'm familiar with the quote, but I thought that it was falsely attributed to him.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know a terrible lot a bout Quayle, but when I heard him talk during the primaries for the 2000 election, I was very impressed by him.
Last night I read the short story "Danny Goes To Mars". The viewpoint characters is an imbecilic Dan Quayle. Although that was kinda annoying, it was a fun story.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What about him impressed you, Porter?
I don't remember specifics, but he seemed intelligent, well-spoken, and I liked or agreed with almost all of his ideas that he spoke of during that interview.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard people rail on Bush's speaking foibles; I tend to take a rather more cynical approach. I'm fairly certain that he's playing to his constituency in a lot of these examples... In his run for governor for Texas, he was supposedly very well spoken, apt and an excellent debater (or at least one that refused to get distracted by Ann Richard's rapier wit).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's probably thousands of better reasons to rip on Bush than to pick on the fact that he's a painfully poor public orator. If anything, his smarmy yokel image is something of a comparative advantage, now that he's flatlining and under extreme critique. When asked a question that he simply cannot give a straight answer to, he has an option that other presidents simply lacked: he can play dumb. The Beast noted his verbal runaround: "Often responds to questions by attempting to define the word he finds the most challenging in them."
Recently, I listened to a testy Q&A session he gave with the press. He was asked about Powell's disdain for his attempt to work around the article three ruling.
He responded with a fumbling, near-complete non-sequitur that did absolutely nothing to answer the actual question. He didn't even mention Powell, then he denied request for a followup and blazed straight onward.
quote: QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?
BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
Well, never you mind that no such comparison was made in the question. Never you mind that the question wasn't even remotely answered. Bush just gets to do this, and few people even bat an eye. He stumbles painfully through entire press conferences like this. He gets to play stall and runaround in a manner that would have gotten former presidents mercilessly harangued by the press and public for being so blatantly, transparently duplicitous, since it's all we really expect from him.
posted
His response makes sense in terms of the meta-question, which has to be taken into consideration. For example, what was Colin Powell writing about? What were some of Powell's points?
The question itself contains an inherent comparison-- our morality vs. the morality of the terrorists. In fact, it is the supposed hypocrisy of the US' stance on interrogations for which Colin Powell critiscizes the Bush Administration's efforts. This is the meta-question that Bush is responding to.
posted
W'yeah it is -- he's dilemma-ing. Powell has been saying that using the wrong methods to combat terrorism removes the public legitimacy of our program. This is, for all intents and purposes, true.
It's also decidedly different than comparing our actions to terrorist tactics, which is not actually happening at all in the question, nor the Powell reference. It's great that he finds no legitimacy in such a comparison, since it would certainly be illegitimate if someone he was responding to were actually making it!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the comparison wasn't made explicitly.
But the comparison is implicit in the critiscism, I think. And it's that critiscism that Bush is responding to. It's a fairly standard politicking tool. Everyone's doing it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I could go back to November 2004 and vote again... I'd vote for him again.
That might explain the Ohio results.
Actually, isn't starLisa from Chicago, IIRC? Where they have a tradition of "vote early, vote often." Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They'll get their break when a democrat is elected president, until then, it's a constant lesson that needs to be taught over and over.
Thankfully, Bush seems hellbent on teaching America everyday about the ills of electing an unqualified buffoon as their president.
When a Democrat gets elected president and continues the PATRIOT act, all of the Democrats will flock to the president's defense, and say, "Look who's pointing fingers! It was a Republican administration that came up with the PATRIOT act in the first place!"
Then they'll do some quick fixes to make the economy seem like it's doing better, sort of like putting rouge on a corpse, and it'll last just long enough for the next Republican to get into office and get accused of undermining the economy.
posted
Okay, so Bush isn't doing a very good job. But I am so glad that Kerry didn't get elected, because that guy was so much worse.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a high opinion of John Kerry, but I don't think there is all that much room for someone doing "much worse" than George W. Bush. I don't know what President Kerry would have done, but saying it would be "much worse" than what we have now seems very unlikely to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy had no idea what he was doing. And his running mate was in way over his head. I think we can all agree that Edwards would have been a worse president than Bush.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think we can all agree that Edwards would have been a worse president than Bush.
There's no way we can get everybody to agree to this.
I doubt we could get everybody here to agree that Stalin would have been a worse president than GWB.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let them have their illusions for another two years.
That is better then the 6 year delusion of actually winning the first election.
Personally I am going to vote straight down the independent line next election. Hopefully enough people will do that so both parties will be reminded that they represent the people.
I would love the republicans to loose the next election, but I would be very worried about the Democrat alternative. Here’s hoping the presidential race will be between McCain and Lieberman! Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how you could say that, Elmer. What about Edwards make you think that he would definitely have been a worse President than Bush?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate it when people assume that if someone disagrees with them, then by definition they cannot be intelligent and informed. :angry:
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's not MY fault you live in the wrong state for the joke.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
