Printable View
I found it to be quite a rousing speech from a man not known to make rousing speeches. It, in my opinion was the speech of his life and might just give Kerry a legit chance in this race. We'll see what happens.
What did you all think of it?
Take care all.
I definitely thought it was a well done speech. Since I don't watch much TV, I read the text online, so I don't know what his delivery was like, but I think he did the best job he could do with words and timing. A well-played hand by Kerry - let's just hope America is listening.
I watched it, and it was definitely something I didn't quite expect from him. Like The Captain said, it got your attention, something I don't think he's done with many of his other speeches.
I'll admit, the speech has bought some more respect from me. He handled himself well and attacked the problems Bush has caused without assaulting the President.
Honestly, I'd like to see Kerry beat Bush into the ground in this election.
Every democratic speech I've seen is always well-prepared. This was no different.
Kerry got a great ovation when he stood up and said "And I'm reporting for duty." I'm always interested in these speeches, whether it's Republican or Democrat, they always help me determine how competent someone is. John Kerry certainly shows me he's very competent to do this job.
What's next is now he and Edwards will go on a 3.5 month campaign across 21 states, mainly in Republican and split states...so he'll probably make brief stops in democratic states like Maryland or California.
Reporting for duty? what so ha can throw some more medals on the white house lawn?
So he can turn America's fate around. *thwap*Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
I quite enjoyed seeing it, myself. I've always had respect for the man, and he made very good points about the real definition of patriotism, not the blind, popular 'We should follow the president and the government to whatever end comes" definition that it's been assigned since 9/11. I enjoyed the speech. A shame that my family didn't tape it.
Right on Mr. Kerry. =)
I didn't watch it, nor any of the rest of Democratic National Pep-rally, nor will I watch the Republican one. Decisions shouldn't be made based upon knee-jerk reactions to emotional speeches and flowery meaningless drivel set to popular rock-'n'-roll music. Give me a list of his stances on the issues, that's all anyone needs. (Don't actually give me one, that was a rhetorical statement.) As if I could trust such a list anyways, but it'd be better than nothing.
It was some metaphorical babble about being "American", and making America "better", and taking us in the "right" direction, right? Without defining exactly what those things are. And vague promises for things like health care, education, national defense, "working families"; i.e. those things every President promises to care about, and which Bush promised to care about too, but which will be forgotten two months after the election, unless it furthers the cause of the Party.
I just sent away for my voter registration papers a few days ago, but I honestly don't know why. I'm probably going to flip a coin. Our Presidential candidates are celebrities, in the most negative sense of the term, and there is hardly a politician alive who will speak anything near the truth between now and November. I can barely even watch TV any more what with the constant barrage of vapid pseudo-optimistic rhetoric and talking-points various "supporters" spout.
That's why I don't watch TV.:)
The speech of his life for me was when he went up to congress 30 or so years ago coming back from vietnam accussing veterans of that war of doing hanus acts such as rape and murder, when he never witnessed the stuff. I didnt like it at all, its like there wearing a ''big mask''. Like what there saying now isnt what they said before. And JEEZ. I want to see the news and all it is this convention, its so boring. Like who cares, any convention if it be democratic or republican. I want to see the news.... Thats why I turn to the computer...Quote:
It, in my opinion was the speech of his life and might just give Kerry a legit chance in this race.
Why? So you can selectively choose the kinds of news that you like to hear?
I myself missed the speech, I'm sorry I did, it sounds good.
A warrior on a battlefield never saw murder?Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
Rape has often been a fear and subjugation tactic for low-to-medium-intensity warfare, and it was no different for Vietnam.
Vietnam saw several villages slaughtered. It was a war, and atrocities WERE committed, whether you choose to believe it or not.
There is no murder on a battlefield.Quote:
A warrior on a battlefield never saw murder?
And he was never on a battle feild ;)
No, that was Bush.Quote:
And he was never on a battle feild
Kerry threw a granade at a rcok and said he got shot. That doesnt sound liek too much of a battle to me. :-/
Depends on who you ask.Quote:
Kerry threw a granade at a rcok and said he got shot. That doesnt sound liek too much of a battle to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
Well maybe he'll release a copy of the X-rays where he has a piece of Viet-Cong sharpnel still lodged in his leg. Either way he saw more action than Bush, thus he has a better understanding of what its like to be a solider on the battlefield. He may have only spent 4 months in Vietnam, but read the book "Acceptable Loss - Kregg P.J. Jorgenson", 4 months for many in Vietnam, was a lifetime.
Anyways they dont give u 3 purple hearts for 1 bullet wound.
-War AngelQuote:
There is no murder on a battlefield.
If u kill an unarmed civilian/soldier willing to surrender, on the battlefield, then u have commited murder. Depending on the ROE even firing on an enemy position, without being fired upon can sometimes be considered murder.
I missed the speech , but I heard from family, friends and now on here, that it was really good. I'm sorry I missed it.
I've been for Kerry since the beginning... at first it was because I hated Bush, and still do, but once Kerry started to get more out into the public and I heard him speak, I really started to want to vote for him, because of what he stands for. Now, I know all politicians say that they will, do this, do that, blah blah blah. Though he seems to more genuinely mean what he says. And besides, how much worse can he be than Bush?
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Unne
"I didn't watch it, nor any of the rest of Democratic National Pep-rally, nor will I watch the Republican one. Decisions shouldn't be made based upon knee-jerk reactions to emotional speeches and flowery meaningless drivel set to popular rock-'n'-roll music. Give me a list of his stances on the issues, that's all anyone needs. (Don't actually give me one, that was a rhetorical statement.) As if I could trust such a list anyways, but it'd be better than nothing.
It was some metaphorical babble about being "American", and making America "better", and taking us in the "right" direction, right? Without defining exactly what those things are. And vague promises for things like health care, education, national defense, "working families"; i.e. those things every President promises to care about, and which Bush promised to care about too, but which will be forgotten two months after the election, unless it furthers the cause of the Party.
I just sent away for my voter registration papers a few days ago, but I honestly don't know why. I'm probably going to flip a coin. Our Presidential candidates are celebrities, in the most negative sense of the term, and there is hardly a politician alive who will speak anything near the truth between now and November. I can barely even watch TV any more what with the constant barrage of vapid pseudo-optimistic rhetoric and talking-points various "supporters" spout."
Unne, you may be cynical, but there is truth underlying there. Yet, how can we completely shut politics out of our life if we want to progress anywhere? What needs to be done is for someone, or a group of people, perhaps our generation, people of the late 70's, 80's and 90's to take a stand and actually do what is promised, to truly make America and the world a more wonderful place. I can believe it will happen because I have faith in my fellow human beings. Even if I am alone on that principle, I will always believe and strive for some kind of success and progress in the world. I may not support Kerry, Bush, Democrats or Republicans, but I support democracy and hope that we as a people never lose sight of what it means to be free or at least ponder freedom in such a way.
One day, we all will have the chance to do something in this world, don't let it pass you by or ignore it because of the flaws of the past. Sure, to assume what has happened already will repeat itself is often a wise way of viewing the future, but it is not absolute. There is hope among us, it is in the beating hearts of the world, of a people who want to help each other, to better themselves and better their lives. It is in that spirit that we must all find the strength to still believe in the world. Perhaps the government is flawed or the system itself is. Yet, how does it go in our written history? If a government is corrupt, destroy it and replace it with one that works. Hopefully it won't ever come to that, but we as the next generation of leaders and true members of this world must take it into our own hands to do something, whatever it may be.
Take care all.
I saw a good portion of the speech, though other obligations kept me from seeing its entirety. I've never been a really gung-ho Kerry supporter, but I've known I'd vote for him ever since he clinched the nomination. Last night's speech did instill a little bit more hope in me, though. It really exceeded my expectations. Although I did think the "reporting for duty" bit was a little cheesy.
He earned those medals, he's free to do with them what he wants. My dad tossed his medals in the nearest trashcan when they handed them out. He earned all of them, but he wasnt at all proud of the war or what he did, but he did his duty and earned them regardless, and they were his to throw away. The same with Kerry, and any other vet who wants to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
Not to mention that the papers are more important than the actual medals, some of which can be purchased, all of which can be re-ordered.
As for the topic at hand, I didnt watch the speech. Maybe I'll download it, I'd like to watch both Kerry and Bush's around the same time.
I haven't actually seen the Kerry speech - I was watching C-Span's stream for such gems as Clinton's and Carter's speech - but I've read how everyone thinks it was great, even the SCLM (so called liberal media).
And, y'know, I'm kinda hopeful. And I'm not even American. :D
EDIT:
Notice how all the Kerry-bashers in this tread are only semi-literate, and sprouting right-wing talking-points spooned out of Rove's
This is like one big soap opera. :)
I still think it's better than all the people who know nothing about Kerry, but he sure is better than TEH EVAL BOOSH. Yes, right.Quote:
Notice how all the Kerry-bashers in this tread are only semi-literate, and sprouting right-wing talking-points spooned out of Rove's
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
I wish there was a "I told you" smiley. :cool:
If you're reffering to the fact I've missed the word 'know', and writing 'it' instead of 'he', I'll have you know I have semi-dyslexic handicaps, and I'm not a native English speaker, to boot. If you're thinking "Well, neither amQuote:
I wish there was a "I told you" smiley.
I!", then good for you. Your grasp of the English language is better than mine. Way to go. Question is... how is any of this relevant?
I think he was refering more to this part of his prior post:
Quote:
...and sprouting right-wing talking-points spooned out of Rove's
How was what I said right-point, and who's Rove? I'm getting a bit confused here...Quote:
...and sprouting right-wing talking-points spooned out of Rove's
Actually, I was referring "TEH EVAL BOOSH".
First of all, it's in all-caps, which may be forgiven as a stylistic mean.
The, evil and Bush are all written in an unstandard way - which isn't BAD. What IS bad that it is a fact that "teh" and "eval" lose some phonological information, even more so than "the" (/T@/),and "evil" (/i:vil/ or /i:v@l/). Tsk, tsk.
And the satire misses so bad. It's not "OMG TEH EVAL BOOSH", it is "OMG TEH EVAL SPOON OF SANTA TEH DEMOCRATS", as we heard last from the right-wing and that bastion of sanity, Ann Coulter. :cool:
Plus I wanted a cheap-shot at the right-wing, and you just... Landed there, with your mistakes. Sorry. But there is a war going on.
[qq= Dr Unne's Guide to Not Being Banned from this Forum]Do not make comments about another person's spelling or grammar skills, or intelligence, or sanity.[/qq]
On topic again please.
I'm sure Bush's speech would be good too. And I'm sure people will applause and we will all discuss and blah blah blah. American politics is like rooting for a sports team. Yeah pick a side but you won't affect the outcome.
Our sanitized leaders, docile media and boderline illerate population means a handful of people are screwing us over. The truth is you'll go nuts if you take american politics seriously. Just look at our politicians.
::sigh::
It doesn't even seem right saying "Bush's speech" or "Kerry's speech". How much of the speeches do you think they write themselves? When it comes to speeches, Bush and Kerry are not much more than mouthpieces, so far as I know. Don't all Presidents have speech-writers?
I thought some of them wrote their own speeches. Woodrow Wilson, I'm sure. Anyways, probably not these days. *doesn't really have any evidence to back it up either*
That's a good point Unne. I think since the era of Radio and mass media, Presidents have exclusively used speech-writers.
Take care all.
Presidents do indeed have speech writers (I'm learning more and more thanks to Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail and various other Hunter S. Thompson articles), but it's easier to say 'Bush's speech' or 'Kerry's speech' rather than go find out who wrote them.
Though i think it's fair to be cynical about American politics, i think it's a little overboard to imply the futility of making a decision. Politicians may more and more be figureheads, but they still represent normatives of government operation, and they and their cabinets (to varying degrees of involvement) still control plenty of our nation's direction.
My problem is that you don't know who or what you're voting for. Bush ran as a "uniter" right? "Compassionate conservative"? Look at him now. Kerry is running as the same thing, a uniter. How do you know he won't turn into a liberal nutcase if he's elected, i.e. the polar opposite of Bush? And what about Bush; he might stay the same, or get even worse (more likely). You just don't know. They tell you what they think you think you want to hear. This thread is about how emotional and vibrant Kerry's speech is; in other words, are people going to vote based upon how good a public speaker someone is?
The best you can do is vote for a Party rather than a candidate. Maybe you can (loosely) define "Democratic ideals" and "Republican ideals" and vote based on that. But not even everyone in the Party can agree on everything. So you can vote based on vague assumptions about the differences between the two Parties. And in many important ways, the Parties aren't even different at all.
Hmmm, do we want our represenative, our president, to be good at speaking in public? I mean he's only representing all of America to the rest of the world...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
But I'm sure it doesn't matter.
A person's ability to speak has nothing to do with his intelligence or his ability to lead. A good speaker will sound good saying anything. A good speaker will sound good saying stupid things, or lying to you. You may as well judge a candidate by how he dresses or whether or not you like his hair style.
What are you saying Unne? Should I put you on ignore, because you may be saying stupid things or lying to me? Should we ignore a philospher's quote because they may have been a good speaker?
Since the TV era, isn't this more or less what's been happening? We've been electing attractive presidents, and presidents with good images: Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan (though not at his peak when he was elected), and, well, Bush the Younger (as much as it pains me to admit it, he's pretty handsome.) Shame on all of us, but it does influence our decision.Quote:
You may as well judge a candidate by how he dresses or whether or not you like his hair style.
Well, as a leader of a nation and its representative to the rest of the world, i believe they should try to dress well, act smart and speak coherently and clearly.
Is it not our job, as voters, to judge, then act on our choice of the better man?
We should judge every aspect of the candidates, not only the quality of their *hm...self written?* speeches but their appearance as a leader. Also the apparently necessary things like services for their country and previous periods of presidency. Everything counts. :cool:
In my sense, a good leader should be the best figurehead he can, and leave the country-running to good ministers and senior advisors.
~~~ Two cents for free _ FreaQ
[qq=ZeZipster]What are you saying Unne? Should I put you on ignore, because you may be saying stupid things or lying to me? Should we ignore a philospher's quote because they may have been a good speaker?[/qq]
"Ignore everyone who's a good speaker" is as wrong as "Being a good speaker = being a good President". I'm saying that being a good speaker or a bad speaker is irrelevant. We should listen to what people say, not how they say it.
Incidentally, I'm absolutely terrible at public speaking. I mumble and stutter, and talk too soft or too quickly most of the time. I also have an accent like a hick, because of where I was raised. Take of that what you may though.
[qq=Anaralia]Since the TV era, isn't this more or less what's been happening? We've been electing attractive presidents, and presidents with good images: Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan (though not at his peak when he was elected), and, well, Bush the Younger (as much as it pains me to admit it, he's pretty handsome.) Shame on all of us, but it does influence our decision.[/qq]
Yes, it does influence people. My point is that it shouldn't. I think that's the only reason people like Clinton. He's charismatic. Never mind that he's a filthy lying adulterer. Bush is "someone who you'd like to sit down and have a beer with", apparently. Never mind how radical or ridiculous his views are. Hitler was a very good orator too, right? He could really rile people up. Poor standard for electing a President.
I see, so their adult life and moralistic standards from YOUR point of view determines how good of a president they'll be... As the economy is so much better with a hick who can't speak in office, also note we aren't very liked anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Hmmmmm, another Hitler comparison but I'm beginning to come around. The truth is that the 'moron' model of politics works. That's right. A loud voice, modest success for the common guy and constant reminders of a conjured evil. The thinking goes "Bush is evil everything he does evil." Now, we are at a point where people refuse to think about an issue beyond their ideology. It's becoming dangerously religious. We are presented a nebulous of ideals and slogans, which are far from realistic, without being explained how it will be accomplished and like some act of God we are supposed to belive that Kerry can accomplish the great task of being less hateable(that's not a word) than Bush.
The last president to tell people to lower their standards was Jimmy Carter right before he lost to the phoniest president of all time.
The economy is trout because Clinton messed it all up right before he left.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeZipster
I see, so Bush couldn't do anything about it for 4 years, and he STILL went to war even with it that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
And did Bush help? I don't think so. The right-wingers say it's improving, but I've not seen evidence yet, neither has anybody else that I know.
For me, the speech did nothing to make me like him more. I support him, because I agree with a majority of the stances Kerry's put forth, excluding abortion, since that's one of the few views I agree with conservatives on.
EDIT: Zipster put it better than I did. Right on.
The general "consensus" is that the president before the current president effects the economy. If this is indeed true, than Clinton produced his own economic upturn, which he enjoyed in his second term. After an economic upturn, there will ALWAYS be a recession, it is unavoidable.
However, it is difficult for me to believe that the president alone affects the economy either positively or negatively in any large way. The economy is so unpredictable it fluctuates greatly. The biggest effect a president can have, in my opinion, is on the mood of the investors. If this is true, then it is quite telling indeed.
I dont think people read my post. hAiZzZz...
Okay...well to wrap it up i basically said that EVERY ASPECT should be under scrutiny. Not whether they can speak well, not their private lives and relationships, not their leadership skills, etc. BUT ALL OF THESE!
True, Bush hasn't dont anything to improve the economy, but he did go to war :) And we know that can only be a sign of 'good leadership', especially when no complete BC weapons were found in Iraq.
Can Ya Dig It?
~~~FreaQ
This is toal BS. All eight years of Clinton's presidency saw economic recovery. If his plan was such a failure, then wouldn't the economy have only been good for, say, 2-3 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Escobar
I think the Kerry speech did say a bit about what his tax plan was, I think (lift middle class taxes, tax upper class), so it wasn't entirely emotional drivel devoid of any rational meaning.
"The economy is so unpredictable it fluctuates greatly. The biggest effect a president can have, in my opinion, is on the mood of the investors. If this is true, then it is quite telling indeed."
That is a good point. Essentially, that means that the rest of the world has to be in some form of harmony with the USA if the economy will boom. Clinton might have been a less than great role model or husband but he was a shrewd politician and had a way of keeping relations between the world and America running smoothly enough that the market was booming.
Another factor, which is completely outside of Presidential power is the fact that the dotcom era began essentially during the Clinton Administration, which led to the giant bubble and eventual burst.
It's so ironic that no matter what, whenever there is a huge upswing on the economy, people never believe it can burst, yet it ALWAYS does. General economic theory would dictate that you cannot sustain a huge economic boom forever and that all things will balance out. Call it the Economic Theory of Gravity, that all things that go up must eventually fall back down. Instead of looking for ways to lift the economy through manipulation of the deficit, perhaps alternatives should be used such as a progressive tax cut or other reforms that can lighten the burden on the middle and lower classes.
Take care all.
I agree with Unne, American politics is way too...American. People should be voting based on what the politicans stand for not all that cheesy crap your politicians seem to go on with. If one of our politicians said something like " I'm reporting for duty" they'd be laughed off the stage. I only really keep an interest in American politics so I can get more of the jokes on David Letterman. :smash:
Is that sarcasm or am i just missing your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by FreaQaZoiD
All slimeballs talk smooth before they go in for the kill.
You could clearly see Bush getting upset and disgusted by his lies.
I agree to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
Anyone recall that nice State Of The Union address Bush gave less than two years ago to talk about slime and lies...
But that's old news now.
Take care all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteyPies
I believe that his speech was the same dross all would-be Presidents give. In the debate both candidates: laughed, embraced and groomed...and seemed more ape than man, I'd say! Kerry ruffled Bushes feathers in the most predictable manner 'on war' (no points for Von Clausewitz here) thus Bush responded with an appeal to the 'familiy unit'; such non-intuitive gas-bagging can be heard in the lounge rooms of gossiping house wives i.e. the last thing America needs is hearing BBQ issues from their leaders!