President Bush's Speech

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 02:53pm

And as for bush being a "stupid" person.......they do have speech writers. Maybe you should be looking behind the man that speaks to see who is really stupid.

Even if you assume that Bush's speechwriters are responsible for every idiotic thing that Bush says (which is a load of bollocks, they are not), that still doesn't absolve Bush of his inability to speak the English language.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-12 02:57pm

Durran Korr wrote:
And as for bush being a "stupid" person.......they do have speech writers. Maybe you should be looking behind the man that speaks to see who is really stupid.
Even if you assume that Bush's speechwriters are responsible for every idiotic thing that Bush says (which is a load of bollocks, they are not), that still doesn't absolve Bush of his inability to speak the English language.

Indeed. Bush can be fairly well-spoken when he's scripted. It's when he ventures off-script that he tends to make his biggest gaffes (like "bring 'em on," three words that gave Jon Stewart weeks of material).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-12 02:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:Even if you assume that Bush's speechwriters are responsible for every idiotic thing that Bush says (which is a load of bollocks, they are not), that still doesn't absolve Bush of his inability to speak the English language.

No no no, Durran... you can't criticize Bush for any of that. After all, he's trying his very best.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 03:04pm

Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
And as for bush being a "stupid" person.......they do have speech writers. Maybe you should be looking behind the man that speaks to see who is really stupid.
Even if you assume that Bush's speechwriters are responsible for every idiotic thing that Bush says (which is a load of bollocks, they are not), that still doesn't absolve Bush of his inability to speak the English language.
Indeed. Bush can be fairly well-spoken when he's scripted. It's when he ventures off-script that he tends to make his biggest gaffes (like "bring 'em on," three words that gave Jon Stewart weeks of material).

Believe it or not, I actually think he may have gotten worse. During the 2000 Presidential debates, he performance was far from perfect. But it wasn't nearly as bad as his performance at many of his speeches this summer, many of which were completely unlistenable.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 03:10pm

So...this all devolves on how good someone is at speaking? OH ok. SO i guess all of those individuals with speech problems are stupid? All of those people have have lisps are stupid? As i recall, some very smart people can be stupid in certain areas. AND yes, speech writers are in a large part responsible for what a public figure says. You read what is written, you don't go and try to ad lib, it does not work too well.

And as for bush doing the best he can, he is. It really doesn't matter either way though governing why you do or do not like him.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 03:15pm

I don't know, no one is making you like bush, i just like him for several reasons.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 03:16pm

And no, you really should NOT pick at someone for such a minor infraction. That is absurd.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 03:16pm

So...this all devolves on how good someone is at speaking? OH ok. SO i guess all of those individuals with speech problems are stupid? All of those people have have lisps are stupid? As i recall, some very smart people can be stupid in certain areas. AND yes, speech writers are in a large part responsible for what a public figure says. You read what is written, you don't go and try to ad lib, it does not work too well.

I was unaware that speechwriters were capable of taking psychic voyages into the minds of reporters in order to find out what questions they plan on asking at Presidential press conferences.

It's impossible for a public figure to always go completely on script.

And as for bush doing the best he can, he is. It really doesn't matter either way though governing why you do or do not like him.

Someone I doubt you would have said the same of Bill Clinton.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-12 03:19pm

Strate_Egg wrote:So...this all devolves on how good someone is at speaking? OH ok. SO i guess all of those individuals with speech problems are stupid? All of those people have have lisps are stupid? As i recall, some very smart people can be stupid in certain areas. AND yes, speech writers are in a large part responsible for what a public figure says. You read what is written, you don't go and try to ad lib, it does not work too well.

And as for bush doing the best he can, he is. It really doesn't matter either way though governing why you do or do not like him.

OK, so he gets a gold star for effort and is special and all that. Appearantly politics is the third grade.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-12 03:22pm

Durran Korr wrote:Someone I doubt you would have said the same of Bill Clinton.

To be fair, Bill Clinton was a good enough public speaker that he could have ended up selling used Ford Pintos to the reporters by the end of the Press Conference.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-12 03:27pm

Strate_Egg wrote:So...this all devolves on how good someone is at speaking? OH ok. SO i guess all of those individuals with speech problems are stupid? All of those people have have lisps are stupid? As i recall, some very smart people can be stupid in certain areas. AND yes, speech writers are in a large part responsible for what a public figure says. You read what is written, you don't go and try to ad lib, it does not work too well.

An important job skill for a politician is the ability to speak well in public, both on and off script. You can't have press conferences pre-scripted, for example. President Bush speaks reasonably well when he's reading from a teleprompter, but when he's not, he flails, stumbles and tries to rely on macho one-liners.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-12 03:28pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Someone I doubt you would have said the same of Bill Clinton.
To be fair, Bill Clinton was a good enough public speaker that he could have ended up selling used Ford Pintos to the reporters by the end of the Press Conference.

Didn't RedImperator say something like that about Clinton?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 03:30pm

Yeah, it's in Durandal's sig quote.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-12 03:31pm

Strate_Egg wrote:So...this all devolves on how good someone is at speaking?

No, it has to do with the words he chooses, his inability to think on his feet when people ask him questions, and his obviously shitty vocabulary. His diction is just the cherry on top of the Stupidity Sundae.

OH ok. SO i guess all of those individuals with speech problems are stupid?

When the problem happens to be "saying stupid things", then yes.

All of those people have have lisps are stupid?

Ridiculous strawman. If Shrubby's only public speaking problem were a lisp, he'd be infinitely better than he is now.

As i recall, some very smart people can be stupid in certain areas.

Then they are at least partially stupid, aren't they? Thanks for contradicting yourself. And yes, communications skills are a component of intelligence. In fact, communications skills are one of the tests we use to determine which animals are smarter than others, dumb-ass. The only excuse for Shrubby's pitiful vocabulary and execrable public speaking technique would be if English is his second language, and it's not. The man went to the finest schools, had every opportunity in life handed to him on a silver platter, yet he has the public bearing of the guy who works at the local donut shop.

AND yes, speech writers are in a large part responsible for what a public figure says. You read what is written, you don't go and try to ad lib, it does not work too well.

Which is precisely why it's notable that Shrubby invariably makes an ass out of himself when he goes off-script, and why he's better at reading speeches than at Q&A sessions.

And as for bush doing the best he can, he is. It really doesn't matter either way though governing why you do or do not like him.

Like it or not, part of being the president is being a statesman, and George W. Bush is no statesman.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-12 03:31pm

Iceberg wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Someone I doubt you would have said the same of Bill Clinton.
To be fair, Bill Clinton was a good enough public speaker that he could have ended up selling used Ford Pintos to the reporters by the end of the Press Conference.
Didn't RedImperator say something like that about Clinton?

I'm not sure. Very possibly.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 07:37pm

You are a smart man Mr. Wong, and i do respect your opinion. HOwever....i just dont believe that it is the fault of the actor for reading the lines given to him in a script. If the writer was stupid enough to write them.

I do understand your point about having to think on the feet, or being on your toes. However that is not a prerequisit for being a politican. They are just giant ballons that spout lies and falshoods anyway. The only difference is, they are usually pre-planned falshoods. If there were some evidence that all politicals think on there feet, or that they do NOT use pre-planned speech, then i would believe differently. As it stands, bush is not an idiot because he cannot think on his feet, rather because he doesnt question his stupid speeches.

THis leads to the philosophy that there are several levels of idiocy. In a way, you are correct to assume that he is an idot in that respect

However, ones methods of speech are really quite irrelevant.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 07:41pm

OH, and dont call me dumbass. I know plenty of comp sci majors and maths majors that are quite intelligent yet cannot even think out of the box. Communications skills are important, but are not necessary to determine intelligence.

I did not contradict myself, for i said some people are stupid in certain respects....certain respects mean: not in other regions, therefore it is unfair to construe that statement to mean stuipd in all respects.

As well, Mr. Wong, i was quite civil with you people and i do not recall using any ad hominum attack fallacy on my part. I would like it if you would refrain from doing so as well.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 07:46pm

One is always better when one has ample time to practice something. The quality of a devised answer or question will always be less worse on a scale than one that was asked/answered out of the blue.

FOr example, i ask my history professor a question about the importance of agriculture on the neolithic community. I surely do not call him stupid for being unable to bear fruit on the subject 6 seconds after i ask him the question...that is just wrong. Even though you are very intelligent, im sure you dont do as well on your feel as you do when you think long or plan. That would be a reasonable assumption.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 07:47pm

As well, Mr. Wong, i was quite civil with you people and i do not recall using any ad hominum attack fallacy on my part. I would like it if you would refrain from doing so as well.

That's not an ad hominem attack, that's just an insult. Important distinction.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-12 07:53pm

Strate_Egg wrote:You are a smart man Mr. Wong, and i do respect your opinion. HOwever....i just dont believe that it is the fault of the actor for reading the lines given to him in a script. If the writer was stupid enough to write them.

Well maybe we should expect more out of our politicians than just to be actors. The president is supposed to be a leader.

There is good evidence that President Bush has deliberately chosen to restrict his working vocabulary over the last few years to seem more "average."

As an "average" American, I find this exceedingly insulting.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-12 08:38pm

Strate_Egg wrote:Oh well : () I think he is a good president. He is a political, they are all bad in their own ways. I just think that bush is the lesser of many evils we have had so far. He is doing the best he can. If you can do better, why do you not try to run for office?

And as for bush being a "stupid" person.......they do have speech writers. Maybe you should be looking behind the man that speaks to see who is really stupid.

If people had daddys with vast amounts of money and the support of corportates with agenda's, he, and others, might run for the US presidency.

As to speech writers, these are people who write according to the speaking style/ability of the person giving the speech. These speeches are givent he Ok by not only the speaker, but also his 'minders' for the correct content and impact. Bush cannot even get spoonfed vanilla right, he has no one to blame but himself.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-12 09:33pm

So we can't call people stupid for having a lisp. Can we call them stupid for posting three times in a row because their memory is too poor to get it all in one go?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-12 09:39pm

Howedar wrote:So we can't call people stupid for having a lisp. Can we call them stupid for posting three times in a row because their memory is too poor to get it all in one go?

Yes, yes we can.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 11:04pm

Really, it isn't poor, but it is a bother when your neighbors wont leave you alone. You would think they would try and sell candy to someone else. It is sometimes hard to concentrate here....not very quiet.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-09-12 11:09pm

Again, im sorry for post again, but i have a very short time in which im able to beat the boyscouts back. As for the insult, i dont see a reason for one. I didn't insult anyone, so there really is no need for one in return.

I do not understand why you guys are always so quick to insult someone that doesn't agree with you 100%. It is not as if i am talking about some massive and important concept.

Anyway, im sorry if i disturbed anyone of you, i didn't mean to cause you a problem and whatnot. I just see so many people that voice a negative opinion bout bush, that it gets old, especially when its about such trivial things. I mean, if you are gonna bang a politician, you might as well do them all, for they are all just as corrupt and bad

Hmmm i dont really have a problem with any of you people. So far the "majority" of you have been nice, as long as everyone holds the same opinion.