Can we find a candidate that can speak?

[RJF]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8[/ame]

[ESmorz]

At least he doesn't read EVERYTHING... like that old little hamster man...

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by RJF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

See, here's the thing, it's a little known fact about Obama: He could see 3 seconds into the future. He was trying to say the words he was going to say in front of the words that he needed to say. Not everyone is perfect but Obama is damn close.

[aziankingz]

what was the point he was trying to make?

[murda-c]

Haha that was great.

[punxva]

No... Simple answer haha

[VROOOM]

well it almost hurts to hear Bush speak so im sure anything is better.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by VROOOM

well it almost hurts to hear Bush speak so im sure anything is better.

Bush:
"Mexicans..........Al Kayda............Terrah"

[Andrew Bohan]

oh give me a break
obama has at least one million times the IQ of Dubya

[ESmorz]

I want to see George W or McCain memorize a speech, or talking points for that matter. They're a fucking joke.

Who cares if he loses train of thought every once in a while, he's got a lot of shit going on up there. I have never seen a piece of paper in front of the guy or him staring at a teleprompter like it holds the secrets of life. Takes a bit of work.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I would love to read the dialog of a McCain and Bush conversation. I'm sure the words Transformers and Home Town Buffet senior special comes up once or twice.

[Baka Sama]

This is like what your 3rd/4th Obama bashing thread?

We get it, you dont like black people.

[drift-it]

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=NeKUSekXYBU[/ame]


how about a better president, maybe if he was doing a good job the last 8 years we might just love him.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by VROOOM

well it almost hurts to hear Bush speak so im sure anything is better.

So, what's the difference? Or is it a double-standard?

Originally Posted by Andrew Bohan

oh give me a break
obama has at least one million times the IQ of Dubya

You have proof of that? Bush's GPA at Yale was higher than John Kerry's

Originally Posted by Baka Sama

This is like what your 3rd/4th Obama bashing thread?

We get it, you dont like black people.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm just sick of the America bashing by both him and Hillary during the campaign.

America is NOT the problem. We are the answer!

I was a kid during the Carter years and remember gas lines and rationing, inflation over 20%, mortgage rates around 20%, unemployment through the roof and he had the same "blame America" attitude.

[eastcoastS14]

^^ If you have not already stated I think it is fair to assume that you are a republican so there for people are pointing out the irony of you insulting the democratic presidential canditates speaking ability saying "can we find a candidate that can speak" while there is a republican president in office who has repeatedly proven his inability to speak

is that the best you have? one video of obama stumbling over his words? is it even worth pulling the dozens of videos of bush fucking up?? they even coined the term "bushism" after his bumblings....when the way you speak has a name...you know its fucked up

[RJF]

I'm just tired of the double-standards

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...476431299.html

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by RJF

I'm just tired of the double-standards

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...476431299.html

It's not quite a double standard. Bush does it almost every time he opens his mouth.

Obama is a brilliant orator, who fucks up a small percent of the time.

If he suddenly started doing it over and over and over... and over, and continued to do so for 8 years. Then people not knocking on Obama, and still knocking Bush would in fact be a double standard.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by ESmorz

Obama is a brilliant orator

Only with a teleprompter....he doesn't even write his own speeches.

[eastcoastS14]

^^ yeah you read that article?? I dont see double standards...I see a candidate who is most likely speaking whats on his mind and then when his aides tell him that he shouldnt have said that he back tracks his statements

the idea of whether or not hillary would have recieved heavy criticism for similar statements is pure speculation....

and mccains statement is more worrying because its misinformation about a current war not incorrect facts about WWII

and finally that article, and these double standards you speak of are media generated.....if hillary would have recieved more criticism than it would be at the medias hands, The media outlets went after her hard saying that she sounded like a nagging houswife....just like they go after obama for the flag pin or mccain for his age, and then those sentiments are transferred onto the american people....the choice to ignore obamas mistakes is the choice of the media....incidentally other than the daily show and colbert report I have yet to hear any serious news program attack bush's bumbling speaches or any of the countless ridiculous policies or statements that have come out of the administration

Originally Posted by RJF

Only with a teleprompter....he doesn't even write his own speeches.

wow news flash almost no one does anymore

[justaKAiswear]

Originally Posted by ESmorz

It's not quite a double standard. Bush does it almost every time he opens his mouth.

Obama is a brilliant orator, who fucks up a small percent of the time.

If he suddenly started doing it over and over and over... and over, and continued to do so for 8 years. Then people not knocking on Obama, and still knocking Bush would in fact be a double standard.

Im not a Obama supporter in the least, but in watching several of his speeches, the man is an excellent orator. RFJ is right to an extent, a major err from Obama would most definitely get a media downplay (not saying this was one), and the tiniest slip from W has received front page hype. At that level, however, it is deservedly so.


Politics aside, some people are great speakers and some people just aren't.


In a separate rant.... It sucks for the bipartisan system that there really isnt a conservative candidate in the election. You get to choose from two guys who are openly liberal in all of their politics and who appear to really only disagree on the topics of war and health care. (Though Im not understating the importance of those two issues) Honestly don't know who Im voting for yet.

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by justaKAiswear

(Though Im not understating the importance of those two issues) .

Really? What about people who can't afford medical care, or have no other choice but to join the military? You think they understand it?

[DRavenS13]

He's a good speaker. Yay. Does that mean what he's saying is just as great?

Most of the time I hear him speak, he's not saying much. Hope, blah blah blah, change, blah blah blah, i'm coming- er, it's coming, blah blah blah.....

See? that was a blunder right there. You catch these things because there's not much else coming out that has any kind of substance.

Change? Really. What are you gonna change that's gonna make a difference in our daily lives? Hope. For what? That just MAYBE you won't fall into the fiscal trap that corporate America lays for every candidate that's come into office since the 70s?

Thanks to the corporate take-over of the media, you are focusing more on his errors during speaking, rather than focusing on what he- or anyone for that matter- is really saying.

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by DRavenS13

He's a good speaker. Yay. Does that mean what he's saying is just as great?

Most of the time I hear him speak, he's not saying much. Hope, blah blah blah, change, blah blah blah, i'm coming- er, it's coming, blah blah blah.....

See? that was a blunder right there. You catch these things because there's not much else coming out that has any kind of substance.

Change? Really. What are you gonna change that's gonna make a difference in our daily lives? Hope. For what? That just MAYBE you won't fall into the fiscal trap that corporate America lays for every candidate that's come into office since the 70s?

Thanks to the corporate take-over of the media, you are focusing more on his errors during speaking, rather than focusing on what he- or anyone for that matter- is really saying.

Same can be said for Bush.

How hard is it to say 9/11, terrorists, Al Queda, democracy, and mission accomplished?

Politics and Politicians fucking suck.



/thread

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by DRavenS13

He's a good speaker. Yay. Does that mean what he's saying is just as great?

Most of the time I hear him speak, he's not saying much. Hope, blah blah blah, change, blah blah blah, i'm coming- er, it's coming, blah blah blah.....

See? that was a blunder right there. You catch these things because there's not much else coming out that has any kind of substance.

Change? Really. What are you gonna change that's gonna make a difference in our daily lives? Hope. For what? That just MAYBE you won't fall into the fiscal trap that corporate America lays for every candidate that's come into office since the 70s?

Thanks to the corporate take-over of the media, you are focusing more on his errors during speaking, rather than focusing on what he- or anyone for that matter- is really saying.

Spoken quite well Lisa and I would concur with you. Fact is Obama offers nothing but words. He has not put forth a solid platform. He speaks in platitudes. Bush spoke in Platitudes as well but he was working with people who had an agenda a bad one at that.

The scary thing about Obama (and I have said this before) is we know nothing about the man. He has done nothing as Illinois state senator and nothing as a U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois. In fact most people in Illinois call him a empty suit.

The fact that so many people are behind him because he says things that make them feel good is scary. Its not about feeling good its about fucking change. Ya he says stuff about change but has he proven he can do it? NO!

I am not a fan of any of the candidates but unless Obama starts proving himself real quick I would not want him for president. Has nothing to do with his being Black and I think RJF feels the same way.
It is about having a track record and some of you young fucks around here need to get off the old man kick.

Just because a person is 40 years old or older does not mean they're old people. I got news for you smart ass little fucks. My dad ran his own business till he was 78. He is 81 and looks and acts like he is 66. I am in my 40's and everytime one of your punk asses meets me in person you shit bricks because you think I am like 32-34.
Get off this fucking age kick! You're all going to get older and eat your fucking words! So shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up.

[Baka Sama]

Im not on any side here, and i dont vote. But what change is mccain gonna make besides a drifting wife?

You have one side that promises change and one side that promises umm... Does anyone even know what mccain is promising either besides more war?

[Omarius Maximus]

Meh, who cares what the hell they say, and how they say it? Look at where the funding for their campaigns is coming from and you'll know their INTENTIONS and that's far more important than a bunch of empty promises.

[just1pepsi]

Obama is a great speaker, nobody denies that. Comparing Bush and Obama and trying to draw a "double standard" is the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite some time. Its like comparing apples to grap-fruit. If you really believe there is a double standard, then I dont know what to say.

40 is not old 70+ is. Average life expectancy is what 72?!

Given our options (which we chose through the primary process,) We have McCain or Obama. Which do you think has the greater potential to actually bring change?
Remember though, that the President is not the supreme leader, he has to unite Democrats and Republicans in order to get anything done, since everything bill has to be voted on.

[aziankingz]

i have no idea who to vote for.. mccain is too old for president..he's about 72, which most 70 year olds would be retired by now, nonetheless run a country for 4 more years? he will just be a continuation of the bush administration, which is quite scary imo or die within a year or so. obama is a lot younger, which is what the country needs in office, but can we take another chance on a speech of change again? all i know is whoever is president, better not be from a state (texas) who relies on high oil prices as a source of income.

[Icy13]

Ok, I am going to attempt to be bipartisan, but like McCain I may fail as my post progresses (sorry, that was a cheap shot.)

Each Candidate's Platform (none of them are empty, trust me dammit, they are serious candidates for office, they all have a platform)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

As a quick note, dont expect candidates to waste expensive tv or speech time going into painful detail about their policies. It's simply a waste of resources. You, as the listener, are not going to remember technical details, you probably wont even pay attention (and you shouldnt have to, thats not what a speech is about).

Rhetoric is supposed to give you a feel for a candidate's personality and 'personal vision.' I freely admit that this is not the most important part of a campaign, but all of us must agree that it is an influential one (vis. Nixon-Kennedy Debates, Lincoln-Douglas Debates). I personally feel that the so called 'leader of the free world' needs a personality and public image that doesn't grate, and I think both McCain and Obama are better at this than Bush (his personality and fake texan mannerisms (I a Texan, dammit, and I go to UT; Bush didnt!) put off lots of people abroad and domestically)

Neither candidate is empty, and both McCain and Obama strongly and genuinely (in my opinion, ofcourse) feel that the country needs a new course. Unfortunately, we only have two parties in this country so one candidate must be part of 'Bush's Party.' This means that although both began this race with a vision, the republican candidate was naturally handicapped by Bush association.

As this race has progressed, McCain has been forced to embrace many of Bush's Ideologies (if not his policies) because he needs to attract the support of Republican strongholds which helped to get Bush elected. How you think this has affected McCain or whether or not you think this is a good thing is a matter of partisanship, but no one can deny that McCain must play a delicate game of not simply dumping Bush for fear of losing the support the president still has.

So, Concluding objective points:
- Neither campaign is empty, period, no argument
- McCain must play a delicate game of balancing Republican support with criticism of Bush (his and public opinion's)

-------------------------------
This is where my objectivity ends, I am not going to much more strongly express my political views. Warning given.
-------------------------------
Now, my response to previous posts:

It sucks for the bipartisan system that there really isnt a conservative candidate

True, there isnt a conservative candidate. I am now going to play a semantic game and say that we havent had a 'conservative party' in the united states for atleast the last century. That is NOT to say that both candidates are the same, but I feel it important to say that. Academically (professionally?) conservativism is the idea that society is made up of different types of people, endowed with different gifts, and their different standards of living are natural and should not be interfered with by government. Picture society as a body, there is a head, hands, and feet. Naturally, the head does different work than the feet and suffers different problems but the feet cannot do the work of the head or the other way around. For a true 'conservative' viewpoint, think old British nobility (or any country with centuries old elites, but that was the first to come to mind).

However, I assume that justaKAiswear was lamenting the lack of a neo-con, or free market candidate and that simply isnt the case. No matter what McCain may have done in the past (or perhaps in light of it) he is clearly a neo-con following the Reagan onward model. His solutions to the issues (yes, healthcare and war are big ones, but the economy as well) are clearly based on ideas of free market capitalism. Read his website, look for policies that have to do with 'tax cuts' and 'putting money back in the hands of the american people' or 'shopping for the best deal on the open market' or 'competition.'

Objectively, there is no problem with these policies and they are clearly in line with his ideology (kinder, gentler neo-conservatism/free market capitalism). Subjectively (in other words IMO) these policies will not solve the problems of unemployment, lack of healthcare for everyone who wants it, civil rights, etc. However, my contention is that this is because fundamentally they aren't designed to solve the problems, thats the whole point of the neo-con ideology. They strive not to solve the problem but to give the individual the ability to solve their own unique problems. IMO, the issue of healthcare specifically cannot be solved in this manner because it goes against the defining principle of insurance: risk pooling. Note: this isnt an 'interpretation' of insurance nor is it what i think insurance should be; this IS, scientifically, the way insurance is designed to work: you pool together so that you can predict risk and account for it.

Only with a teleprompter....he doesn't even write his own speeches.

Neither did Churchill, he didnt always even speak them (some of the most famous radio address were given by a voice double) and he won WWII.... so, um, yea

That has nothing to do with it. I'm just sick of the America bashing by both him and Hillary during the campaign.

America is NOT the problem. We are the answer!

Alright, you fail at distinguishing a regime from 'the state.' There is nothing wrong with the country america, atleast not as far as the design of the political system goes. true, it has its faults and it benefits, but the system has stood the test of time and endured with few ammendments.

However, Bush is not america. Bush was an american president.
Republicans are not America, either. They are americans, but not america
Democrats are not America. They are also Americans, but not America
'Corporate America' is not america either, they are just a group of citizens.
Neither is the 60+% of americans that are obese america.
The 60+% of americans who dont vote arent america either, they are simply bad americans (ok, i had to say that, civic duty and all )
.....
I could go on like this for a while, and we still wouldn't be able to nail down a definition of 'America' other than it is the actions of the nation as evidenced in its policies and execution of those policies. Even this definition is poor, as it would seem to suggest that the current regime is america, but I think we can all agree that we DONT agree about that being true.

Basically, I am tired of all the people who say that people critical of the current regime dont love america or that they are critical of america. You look like Ricky Bobby when you say such things, stfu! I would truely like to hear what view you hold and especially why you hold them, but if you brazenly wave a flag in my face I am going to burn it in your hands.

Side note: why is it only Republicans who like to accuse people of "blaming america?"


-----------------------------------

I think this is long enough, most people probably wont read it, I probably wouldn't, but here it is. You should read it. Also RJF, I would like to take this chance to say that I am not attempting to insult your intelligence or knowledge. However, you are insulting yourself if you use fallacious points to support your argument. Dont try to argue facts, opinions and interpretations are much more interesting and, in fact, the only things that matter.

----

Im not on any side here, and i dont vote.

Look, I would love for you to take an interest in politics, but if you are going to start your post that way, then f*** off. Honestly, who cares what you think if you dont? This is perhaps overly harsh, but why would you post if you dont care enough about this to express your opinion politically; why would zilvia care?

Note: if you cant vote for some reason, or haven't voted before, that comment is not for you. Otherwise, why should someone respect your opinion on these matters if you dont?

[Icy13]

Damn, poor zilvia^^^^

However, you should check it out