|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can this be Bush? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
I despise Bush's brand of politics, but like all Republicans he relies on the support of the hard religious right. In private I'll bet he doesn't much care about sexuality as an issue.
Bush is one thing, but what I REALLY don't understand is the mind-set of homosexuals (many closeted, I'm sure) working in the Republican party who provide tacit support to anti-gay ammendments. I guess, like all politicians, they are doing what they have to to get along. Strikes me as hypocritcal, but the currency of most politicians is power, not virture or principle.... Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
He's a petty, petty little man who bears no resemblance to a real leader. Just how many politicians are real leaders these days? {ABE}
I thought that was Merriam-Webster's job. Since when is it a law that Merriam Webster define words for the English language? Obviously not everyone would agree with it. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Good link Schraf.
Have you ever spoke in front of large crowds? To the entire nation? There is a difference. Every word that comes out of Bush's mouth now gets analyzed to death, and that could possibly make a person nervous to speak. I speak in front of congregations, and sometimes I am nervous, and sometimes I am not. The nervousness blocks the thoughts from getting to my mouth sometimes. I think also it has to do with how confident you are on the subject you are speaking. Maybe some of his speeches that are scripted by others won't come out as clear, as something that he firmly believes in, and is well educated in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't have an exact count but I would say that, of all the offices in the land, the president, at least, should be a great leader. Or at least give the impression or illusion of being a great leader. Clinton, for example, appeared to be a very good leader even if he wasn't the best president. Reagan, too. Howard Dean is a very good leader, and Kerry is also despite his lack of charisma. Arlen Specter comes to mind, as does Nancy Pelosi and Christine Todd Whitman. Going outside our own country, Hugo Chavez seems to be an amazing leader, as does Vladamir Putin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Pretty large, yes.
quote: Yes. And a presidential candidate that cannot speak coherently, stumbles miserably over every other word, cannot construct a complex sentence nor even a simple one without a struggle, and flounders when asked to speak carefully is a very pathetic presidential candidate.
quote: Sure, especially when you can't speak coherently.
quote: Forgive me, but this is the president. Don't you think that one of the skills required for the job should be the ability to speak in public?
quote: He's the president. He should be well-versed in every single thing he is speaking about. Otherwise, how on earth is he supposed to make decisions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
schrafinator writes: a presidential candidate that cannot speak coherently, stumbles miserably over every other word, cannot construct a complex sentence nor even a simple one without a struggle, and flounders when asked to speak carefully is a very pathetic presidential candidate Then there must be something else that makes him a good candidate, because he was in fact elected.
Don't you think that one of the skills required for the job should be the ability to speak in public? Apparently a majority of the electorate doesn't. It could of course be that, since there are only two candidates to choose from, who each stand for two rather opposite ideologies, that, even though Republican voters think Bush is an awful orator, they have no choice but to elect him, because they think that Democrat ideology must not be allowed to rule. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: He was only elected once. But anyway, he wasn't really elected because of himself. He was voted for in large part because his party whipped up the Republican base's fear and hatred of fags.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
That is certainly part of it. I know many Republicans who would vote for a monkey if it were running on the Republican ticket. I hate to admit it but members of my family are included in this group. It is almost as if being a member of a political party (I'm including all political parties here) is a faith and not a position arrived at rationally.
It could of course be that, since there are only two candidates to choose from, who each stand for two rather opposite ideologies, that, even though Republican voters think Bush is an awful orator, they have no choice but to elect him, because they think that Democrat ideology must not be allowed to rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It is almost as if being a member of a political party (I'm including all political parties here) is a faith and not a position arrived at rationally.
I am challenging your use of the word "almost"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In 2004 he was elected with a 286-251 lead and in 2000 he received 271 votes to 266. The question is: Did some of the electors actually get 'elected'?
evc pedantry at its finest - ignore me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He was only elected once. Well, it's beyond question that he did not actually win the 2000 election. Gore was the winner of Florida, not Bush, and the Supreme Court acted beyond its constitutional authority when it appointed Bush to the presidency. And I think the case is pretty solid that Kerry was the winner of the 2004 election, as well. The statistical anomalies that overwhelmingly favored Bush nationally, and particularly in the contested states, simply can't be dismissed. All attempts so far to rebut those anomalies have compared them to the 2000 election - an obviously invalid rebuttal since the 2000 election was stolen! So I don't think it's accurate to say that Bush has ever been elected President of the United States.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Yes. And a presidential candidate that cannot speak coherently, stumbles miserably over every other word, cannot construct a complex sentence nor even a simple one without a struggle, and flounders when asked to speak carefully is a very pathetic presidential candidate. I agree, and it is what I dislike most about Bush.
Forgive me, but this is the president. Don't you think that one of the skills required for the job should be the ability to speak in public? If it was, then he wouldn't have got elected. So I don't think your beef is with him personally, as it is with his voters.
He should be well-versed in every single thing he is speaking about. Otherwise, how on earth is he supposed to make decisions? That's what his advisors are for, it just sucks that he can't represent what they tell him in a coherent manor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If it was, then he wouldn't have got elected. He didn't. By any statistical analysis, he never has.
That's what his advisors are for Then why don't we elect them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Crash, have you read Farnken's latest, The Truth (With Jokes)?
He says that Bush and the Republicans won the last election with a three-pronged strategery: "Fears, smears, and queers". It's both awful and funny at the same time, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Schrafinator writes: He is not only coherent 10 years ago but is downright articulate. He is able to string long sentences together into entire paragraphs that convey fairly complex ideas. He is energetic and confident and dynamic. He also clearly has memorized a great deal of information and he never refers to notes. IOW, he appears to have his shit together It's really quite strikingly different to how utterly awful a public speaker he is, and has been for his entire presidential career. I think he is a fall guy. I think that the neocon agenda purposefully manipulates public opinion by having Dubya appear to be so dumb that all blame and attention and outrage is focused on him as an inept buffoon when the real damage is occurring behind the scenes. Bush is like the little man behind the curtain...a figurehead whom serves as a distraction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024