[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.
[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.
::
Smile even though its breaking
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.
See no evil.
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.
(-o-)
-tie fighter
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...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.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.
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
Last edited by FreaQaZoiD; 08-03-2004 at 03:57 AM.
[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.
Posting Permissions
