Like I said I DONT like Kerry but Bush seemed like he was dodging questions tonight. Clinton is long gone. That was my point. Who cares if he could speak or not he isn't our leaderchadtm80 wrote:Were Making a comparison Rainband

Moderator: S2k Moderators
azskyman wrote:I'll take a man of substance any day.
brettjrob wrote:Rainband wrote:I am not sure![]()
I really thought he was very nervous. I agree he isn't one of the best speakers. Like I said. I don't like Kerry but Bush Blew it on this press conference in my opinion. I loved his opening statement. He seemed a tad nervous in the beginning. Then He couldn't answer simple questions. He repeated himself over and over. This is the man who leads our nation. I understand we all have bad days. He didn't seem very confident and ran from tough questions... That makes me nervous. Sorry just being honest.
Absolutely; it's nice to see someone willing to step out of the confines of partisanship every once and a while. We can never know for sure what goes on behind closed doors, but repeated poor performances in press conferences and/or interviews does have to lead one to question the man's intelligence and personal effectiveness. One can easily agree with him on issues and applaud the major decisions he has made, but still admit that he may or may not always be prepared to face the tough questions and back those decisions up in front of the American people.
I am not a big fan of either Bush or Kerry, but in the case that I were to be 18 this coming November I would most likely vote for the latter. I understand that being a poor speaker should really have no more bearing on one's presidency than having a private extramarital affair (ahem), but for me it is impossible to wonder whether the poor speaking is simply a natural weakness of his, or possibly an indication of a deeper lack of intelligence and personal ability to face the music when his sidekicks aren't acessible to him? Just my thoughts; those suspicions very well may be invalid, but either way I think what's important here is to recognize both the weaknesses and strong points of Presidents (and Presidential candidates!) of any and all parties, regardless of your own affiliation.
timNms wrote:Brett,
with all due respect to you, just 'cause a person has problems getting words to come out right, doesn't mean he/she is unintelligent. I can sit here and type with the best of 'em...but put me in front of an audience and everything I say comes out backward LOL. (Guess that's why I majored in ELEM. Ed instead of secondary ed. I can speak in front of kids all day long, but put a group of young adults, or adults in front of me and my brain freezes.)
thepiecesfit wrote:And as has been said that is completely valid, but the problem in the specific case of George W. Bush is that he comes off as a very confident man who would have little natural fear of public speaking. It isn't necessarily his tone or posture so much as his choice of words and ability to respond directly to the real meat of the questions presented.
Bush's speaking skills are not directly correlated with his intelligence, that's for sure; but at the same time, they cannot be used as an excuse for dodging questions and lacking answers. Hope this makes sense .
timNms wrote:thepiecesfit wrote:And as has been said that is completely valid, but the problem in the specific case of George W. Bush is that he comes off as a very confident man who would have little natural fear of public speaking. It isn't necessarily his tone or posture so much as his choice of words and ability to respond directly to the real meat of the questions presented.
Bush's speaking skills are not directly correlated with his intelligence, that's for sure; but at the same time, they cannot be used as an excuse for dodging questions and lacking answers. Hope this makes sense .
He may be like me.....when he gets home or even hours later thinks "Man, why didn't I say......" LOL I can think of a million things that I should have said after I think about things a bit.
timNms wrote:(Brett), with all due respect to you, just 'cause a person has problems getting words to come out right, doesn't mean he/she is unintelligent. I can sit here and type with the best of 'em...but put me in front of an audience and everything I say comes out backward LOL. (Guess that's why I majored in ELEM. Ed instead of secondary ed. I can speak in front of kids all day long, but put a group of young adults, or adults in front of me and my brain freezes.)
mf_dolphin wrote:President Bush graduated from Harvard business school so he's definitely got it on the ball mentally. I guess we all realize that public speaking isn't his strongest talent. lol
WEATHER53 wrote:Bush is a one term president. The only thing that will prevent a resouunding defeat is the Kerry will not bring to the table what Clinton did. I see about a 60-40 win for Kerry, maybe 55-45. Father and son bonds can transcend evern presidencies and there is no doubt in my mind that a from day one agenda was to finish dad's unfinished business. Not inherently a bad plan but the game strategy failed to include the second half. Now, we have an enemy of such unconventional means that we cannot find nor kill. Whether it is 3,500 die hards or 35,000, what are we going to do?-kill 10 per day for the next 1-10 years. The June 30 exit is the lesser of two evils, cut and run early but at least get the heck out versus stay and wiggle some more in the quicksand.
rainstorm wrote:the more important question is why democrats feel bush is there enemy, not the terrorists.
stormchazer wrote:WEATHER53 wrote:Bush is a one term president. The only thing that will prevent a resouunding defeat is the Kerry will not bring to the table what Clinton did. I see about a 60-40 win for Kerry, maybe 55-45. Father and son bonds can transcend evern presidencies and there is no doubt in my mind that a from day one agenda was to finish dad's unfinished business. Not inherently a bad plan but the game strategy failed to include the second half. Now, we have an enemy of such unconventional means that we cannot find nor kill. Whether it is 3,500 die hards or 35,000, what are we going to do?-kill 10 per day for the next 1-10 years. The June 30 exit is the lesser of two evils, cut and run early but at least get the heck out versus stay and wiggle some more in the quicksand.
In other words, do the same thing we have done for the past 20 years. Send a message...
1. The US has no stomach for war - Kill Americans.
2. The US does not keep its promises - Kill Americans.
3. Americas way of life makes them weak - Kill Americans.
Can you tell me how this strategy has been successful in last 20 years? When did terrorist not attack because we ran like chicken-sh@t weaklings? Did this strategy prevent further attacks after Beruit? The Cole was the last attack because we did not act? The first WTC bombing was handled like a police problem. Did we get the desired result? I noticed that the WTC site is awful barren today. Should we now run again?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests