"Fool me once . . . . shame on you."
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Yeah yeah, so public speaking isn't one of his strengths. I would probably do just as bad.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, yeah, but he's the freakin' President. Public speaking skills should be a prerequisite.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... won't get fooled again..." Gotta love a prez that quotes The Who. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yeah, yeah, but he's the freakin' President. Public speaking skills should be a prerequisite.
Why? I don't care if he's a skilled orator; I care how he runs the country.
REAGAN was a skilled orator, and he was an awful president!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Why think you would that?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: I didn't care for Reagan either, but at least the man could write.
Um, you aren't actually claiming that the man wrote his own speeches, are you?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
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. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: REAGAN was a skilled orator, and he was an awful president!
Reagan rocked.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What about him impressed you, Porter?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I could go back to November 2004 and vote again... I'd vote for him again.
That might explain the Ohio results.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
... hah
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
It's not a flub.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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." Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
I hate reruns.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If I could go back to November 2004 and vote again... I'd vote for him again.
That might explain the Ohio results.
<Geography lesson> Chicago is actually in Illinois. </Geography lesson>
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> I think we can all agree that Edwards would have been a worse president than Bush.<<
Wanna bet?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Fine, I think all the intelligent people can agree to it. Obviously I was exagerating.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Worst. President. Ever.
And yet he won twice.
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! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:<Geography lesson> Chicago is actually in Illinois. </Geography lesson>
Yes, I knew that. It's not MY fault you live in the wrong state for the joke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:<Geography lesson> Chicago is actually in Illinois. </Geography lesson>
Yes, I knew that. It's not MY fault you live in the wrong state for the joke.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Chicago is actually in Illinois.
Yes, I knew that. It's not MY fault you live in the wrong state for the joke.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hate it when people assume that if someone disagrees with them, then by definition they cannot be intelligent and informed. :angry:
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think all the intelligent people can agree to it. Obviously I was exagerating.
I hate it when people assume that if someone disagrees with them, then by definition they cannot be intelligent and informed.
[ September 18, 2006, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think all the intelligent people can agree to it. Obviously I was exagerating.
I hate it when people assume that if someone disagrees with them, then by definition they cannot be intelligent and informed. :angry:
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Did you ever hear Edwards speak? He was an idiot. He acted like a kid, and he didn't seem cut out for politics. Did you see him in his debate with Cheney? I mean, he looked like a moron. He had no idea how to debate.
And mr porteiro head, I'm pretty sure I was kidding.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Did you ever hear Edwards speak? He was an idiot. He acted like a kid, and he didn't seem cut out for politics. Did you see him in his debate with Cheney? I mean, he looked like a moron. He had no idea how to debate.
And mr porteiro head, I'm pretty sure I was kidding.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I have similar feelings for the reverse situation, when people assume that someone is intelligent and informed simply because he or she agrees with their positions.
(This post is a pronoun mess. )
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Even if I accept your description there (which, I don't by the way. Edwards struck me as neither strong nor weak during the campaign, overall. On some of his picked issues though, he was very strong.), I don't see how that would separate him from President Bush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
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.
I hate reruns.
Cry about it. Presidents since the dawn of the Republic have gotten credit for economic successes and have been ridiculed for economic failures, and many of those have much to do with the actions of their predecessors. It happens to Republicans, it happens to Democrats.
Democrats will, and I believe should, get their chance to propose new ideas and new legislation. The president, with the support of the Republican Congress has made a host of poor decisions. The democrats claim they have a better way, and they'll get their chance. If they don't they'll suffer the backlash, if they do and Republicans stifle it in Congress, they'll suffer the backlash.
You're already crying foul, and we haven't even gotten to the Midterm elections yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funny, Cheney always strikes me as a robot programmed with Fear 3.0, I don't know how anyone could look like a moron next to CheneyBot.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I recalled the VP debate very differently, but to be honest, I wasn't entirely sure. So I went looking for an reputable online analysis. Here's one from the Shields/Brooks section of the McNeil/Leher News Hour.
Here's conservative columnist David Brooks' initial description:
quote:It was a tense debate. Edwards came out right from the get-go and said you're not being straight with the American people. They really went at it. I thought a couple of them landed blows or each of them landed blows several times. I didn't see either of them stagger particularly.
Here's liberal columnist Mark Shields' take:
quote:Two different debates. John Edwards first one-on-one debate, it had been billed that way, absolutely no nervousness. Came out right from the start and was aggressive. And Dick Cheney, I think, the vice president was really knocked back on his heels -- didn't come back until about the third question when he raised the question about John Kerry's votes and voting record and votes on defense matters. This was supposed to be where Cheney dominated. He didn't. He did not dominate on the discussion of that part of the debate. And I thought Edwards did exceptionally well considering it was his first debate.
I don't recall the debate the way you do and they don't seem to either.
[ September 18, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Cry about it. Presidents since the dawn of the Republic have gotten credit for economic successes and have been ridiculed for economic failures, and many of those have much to do with the actions of their predecessors. It happens to Republicans, it happens to Democrats.
Democrats will, and I believe should, get their chance to propose new ideas and new legislation. The president, with the support of the Republican Congress has made a host of poor decisions. The democrats claim they have a better way, and they'll get their chance. If they don't they'll suffer the backlash, if they do and Republicans stifle it in Congress, they'll suffer the backlash.
You're already crying foul, and we haven't even gotten to the Midterm elections yet.
It ocurrs to me that this is a part of it all too- the crying foul bit. So many people cry foul so bleeding often, that it's tough to sort out the legitimate complaints. I have a legitimate complaint: the patriot act is unconstitutional... but its like shouting: "I'm Sparticus." My noble message of defiance is drowned in a deluge of similar complaints, until we get everyone claiming that every problem is the worst one in the world. Me included in that.
Here we have alot of caring people with a lot of useful perspective, and we can't get past the way that America, right and left, has taught us how to behave. I'm kinda tired of the debate that defeats itself. Any takers?
Edit: <Music Analogy Ahead>
I host guitar workshops at my Teen Center, as well as have pretty regular jam sessions with fellow musicians in the music department. There is a real problem with practicing rock music as a group, and any rocker or jazzer or even symphony member has experienced the effect.
"Turn the amps up to 11" I use the phrase ironically.
What happens, (especially with amatuers, but actually with everyone sometimes), is that as the practice goes along toward infinity, the chances of one of the players looking at his amplifier to see if the volume goes up to eleven, approaches unity.
It begins at a reasonable volume, and a few things happen. The drums kick up and the drummer has a solo. The bassist or the guitarist insist on hearing their own parts, so they play harder, or they tweak the volume up. Then the drummer returns to his beat like the military returns to a pre-draft state, it stays bigger and louder than it was before, and that's the new low. This keeps going on until the musicians are breaking strings, losing all semblance of tone quality, dynamics, whatever, its all for nought.
My job as a jam session wrangler for these teens is to chase around the room, lowering the volume on the amps. Its tough, but I try to convince the kids that the only way to sound good as a group is to try and get QUIETER than the others. Its shocking sometimes, when they really hear me and listen to that peice of advice, how the experience changes. The music goes from incomprehensible, to sometimes downright lovely, because these kids are LISTENING to eachother, and CHALLENGING eachother TO LISTEN. Its quite brilliant, but its a rare moment. The best groups do it routinely, but if you've ever seen a college or a HS rock band, you have seen the other side of the kaleidoscope.
Music is quite frustrating in this way, and many music majors, myself included, avoid playing music together casually because it is so often a stressfull, not an enjoyable, experience. There need to be ground rules, there needs to be a concerted effort to be quiet and to play the other member's instruments as much as they are playing yours. That is the only REAL way.
[ September 18, 2006, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just wondering what Elmer has to say about the Edwards issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Worst. President. Ever.
And yet he won twice.
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Let's see Lem... you have to be president to be the worst president ever... and that severly curtails any reasonable list of people to about, what, 43 names? Out of those 43, there are a few top ranking candidates for worst ever. Bush is at the top of that list, for me. The fact that he got elected twice may be cause for a different judgement: Stupidest. Electorate. Ever.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever. Add some names to the list, and see how many of them really dropped the ball in the second term, making them qualifiers for worst ever.
If you really think about it. Hard for some people maybe- the worst president ever would need a few chances to fail. Part of his downfall might even be... gasp... the campaign promises and platforms that get him elected for the second time. All the short sighted stupidities of the first term might just tumble down like a house of cards on top of the administration that slides into the second term by the skin of its teeth, having fought a too-hard battle to stay alive. Seems possible to me... seems like it happened.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Okay, how did this conversation trigger a GoogleAd for The Dark History of the Church?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Worst. President. Ever.
And yet he won twice.
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Posted by Humchuckninny (Member # 9777) on :
In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
I don't see how he can be the worst president ever. I myself have very democratic views. However I still believe Bush is very intelligent. For some of you who critique his intelligence, consider this: he has surrounded himself with some of the brightest minds in America. Look to his advisors and cabinet - Samuel Bodman, Alan Hubbard, and Mike Leavitt just to name the first few I can think of off the top of my head (those may be mispelled).
Additionally, Bush has put more funding to the aids epidemic in Africa during his presidency then the rest of the world combined, including the UN. Some of his steps towards energy conservation are greater than any president before him.
The point I'm trying to make here is that so many people do not look at the big picture. Many people (like myself) very much disagree with some of Bush's war policies, and we base our judgement of his presidency on that. The fact of the matter is that those differences are not quantifiable - they are based on moral implications. Our morals are all different. A good friend of mine completely agrees with the war policies of the White House. Who am I to say my views are correct and his are incorrect?
In the initial Iraqi war, over 50% of the population supported it. Abiding by democracy, the president went to war. Now, of course, less than 40% support it. Does that mean we should pull out? Well, is it practical? Sometimes the President cannot support majority views. For example, I guarantee at least 50% of the population would like the government to give them a million dollars. Is this practical? No. By not "representing the views of the general public" in this sense, is Bush a terrible president? A lot of people's reasoning methods would say yes. Unfortunately when it's not practical to uphold citizens' views, it is labeled as unwillingness, and reflects on the intelligence and compatancy of the White House.
So while Bush may not take into some of the views us liberals have and coincide his policies with said views, he still is doing a lot more for the nation and the world than the our media presents. Unfortunately most of our party does not take the time to do the research on their own opinions of the President and look at the big picture.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
Sweet Jebus, that's got to be some sort of record.
Hum, First off, don't compare people to Hitler or Nazis without an actual justification. It's one of the 3 classic internet blunders; the first being never get involved in a flame war about land wars in Asia.
Second, if you're going to make looking at the big picture your statement of principle, you may want to consider the multitude of threads on this site wherein posters (many of them participants on this thread) express why they don'tagree with the Bush administration on many things for reasons that go far beyond thinking the President isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and/or moral differences.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
the other classical blunders being never get involved in a land war in Asia, and only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You consider Mike Leavitt to be one of the brightest minds in the nation?
I swear we are not living in the same universe.
[ October 03, 2006, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Worst. President. Ever.
And yet he won twice.
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Oh riight, so its three times to the white house for Nixon? I forgot that it was in his second PRESIDENTIAL term that he, you know, became a top finisher for Worst Ever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humchuckninny: In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
I like that you invoked the constant in your first sentence, in your first post in your first thread on Hatrack. That's balls. Stick around.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Worst. President. Ever.
And yet he won twice.
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Oh riight, so its three times to the white house for Nixon? I forgot that it was in his second PRESIDENTIAL term that he, you know, became a top finisher for Worst Ever.
Actually, Nixon had 4 trips--2 as pres, 2 as vp. Couldn't resist the nested quote goodness. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
God, I need to review my chart of the American Presidents... I look dumb.
Posted by Humchuckninny (Member # 9777) on :
I thought my justification in comparing people to (neither Nazi's nor Hitler, but simply Germans) was clear. And I think that I was very misunderstood. My initial comment was not primarily intended to offend, although that was a bonus I was hoping for. This is what I was trying to say - Germans in a post-WWI setting listened to Hitler because he was a great speaker, and told them things they wanted to hear. The mistake Germans made (and this doesn't make them bad people at all) was not really comprehending the entirety of what Hitler was proposing, until it was too late and he had gained too much power, and even still they were sucked in by his amazing speach abilities and his promises of wealth and prosperity. I was simply comparing said Americans to said Germans, in that many people were upset with the speaking abilities when speaking ability has no coorelation with morals, beliefs, intelligence or ruling ability. If the most outspoken thing one can say about Bush is that he cannot speak well, then perhaps they would be more comfortable with someone like Hitler, who can speak very well. Hence, speaking ability should not play a significant roll in the judgement of a ruler. Not meant as an offensive statement, but more an eye-opener. Although the insulting nature of it is certainly something I chose not to eliminate
The most specific critiques were of the Republican Controlled Congress, which was briefly touched; a mention of the Patriot Act, and a debate over whether or not someone needed to be elected a president to be the "worst" president. Oh, and about economic recssion being the result of prior generations, but not really directly applied.
Nothing was really delved into, no examples were given, everything was hinted at. I just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the matter - oh, I just reread your post and you mention OTHER threads, not this one. So, in response to THAT statement, I suppose I would say that I'm not going to delve into each person's profiles and lives to figure out what it is they specifically disagree with about bush. But making a broad, general statement "worst. president. ever." is very unmerited. In the other threads I will respond to what is posted there, and hopefully it is more specific than what is here. But I do not generally a.) cross thread, and b.) take the time to look up every post by an author who makes a general unwarranted statement to see if at some point in their career on the forum they indirectly gave purpose and content to their statement. It's like me writing a paper and making many claims, then say "well I obviously backed them up in papers for other classes." Perhaps not the best example, but it still works to an extent.
I should really quit writing posts in stream-of-consciousness format.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Okay, how did this conversation trigger a GoogleAd for The Dark History of the Church?
What if God IS in the White House?
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hum, The essence of this form of the Godwin is that you take some neutral quality, in this case preferring people who can speak well, that some bad group, normally either the Nazis or Hitler possessed, and use that to claim that other people who possess it are equilivent or can be likened to this group, or, as you said:
quote:you would all make great followers of Hitler
You didn't offend anyone. You just made yourself look foolish. It's funny, not enfuriating.
---
As for responding only to what was written in this thread, were your comments limited to the scope contained in this thread, that would not be a argument destroying problem. However, you blew right past this with your first sentence:
quote:In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public
We normally expect newcomers to spend some time familiarizing themselves with the forum and posters, but it's not like we're super anal about it. However, if you are going to make claims about what the people on the threads most outspoken criticism is, you're going to need to actually read about their criticisms.
This error is made particularly egregious when the main principle you organized your post around was "taking in the whole picture".
You started out with unacceptable ignorance and an argumentative blunder so common and recognized it's got its own name and then zoomed right into hypocracy. All in all, not a particularly auspicious beginning.
The good news is that Hatrack is both a generally welcoming and forgiving place. You screwed up pretty big with your initial post, but, if you want to find a place here, just don't do it again. Or better yet, man up, admit you were wrong and it's like it never even happened.
[ October 04, 2006, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What if God IS in the White House?
Nah, that can't be. They coated the whole thing with lead. God can't get through that.
Unless, maybe he got in somehow through an open door or window and now he can't get out. Oh man, God is trapped in the White House! Quick, we need to go to D.C. and let him out.
![[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)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)