Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Joe Republican wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
And how shameful it is that the "average" American doesn't give a rat's ass if the President pronounce the words Nuclear and Iraq the way they do at Harvard or Georgetown (or even Canada).
Very, and how shameful is it that our president CAN'T pronounce those words, yet he was educated at both Yale and Harvard.
Well, clearly that is a matter of opinion, but I would submit that anyone who considers it truly shameful is a pompous and superficial ass. If the manner in which a person pronounces certain words is a determining factor in a person's voting decision, I contend the shame lies squarely on that person.
Again, a swing and a miss. I'm relating the inability of the POTUS to show any semblance of intelligence, espically considering his education backround, a point you so graciously glance right over.
Quote:Quote:
You are right Cav that Bush is indeed counting on his man of the people style to win voters over, and much to the chagrin of the elitists in this country, it will work.
There are enough existential thinkers in this country that see through the mask. A few of them are even in the DNC, and they know how to unmask the phantasm. For Bush's character is his foible, the RNC has failed to see this.
Which is it? A cynical facade or authentic mispronunciations? On the one hand you would argue that the man is a buffoon who can't properly pronounce Iraq, and on the other you charge that his "Just Plain Folks" demeanor is a sham.
Even if it is an act, it is the fact that it might work that engenders such disdain in the Liberal elite, not because Bush is engaged in theatrics, but because a large segment of the American population might eat it up. For them it isn't that someone has a firm grasp, and consistent position on the issues of Iraq and nuclear weapons proliferation, it is all about whether or not that person can pronounce the word in a certain acceptable way.
There is a certain paradox involved here. If everyone in the country properly pronounced all the words in the dictionary, how then would the elitists establish their claim to being among the elite?
Again, completely ignoring the initial point of the post and instead going on a three paragraph tirade which ignores the crux of the issue.
It isn't that Bush isn't folksy, it's that he is a poser in every sense of the word. He insists he's a man of morals, yet he has the morals of a billy goat. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is a complete and utter falsehood relayed behind the image of a folksy down to earth man. Bush did not create the image, he is just playing the part. unfortunately for him, but fortunate for the rest of the country, he has neither the intellectual capacity to relay the complex nature of the situation nor does he have the ability do discern the truth from fable. His education, which was the best money could buy went to a waste, and you fail to see the obvious staring you right in the face because you look at the issue through objective eyes.
Quote:
Quote:
What Democrats have lost sight of is the fact that they can not be The Party of The People, if they hold The People in disdain.
I agree that image is just as important as substance, but the image that is important to Americans is not the one needed for diplomacy. Kerry is not completely ideal, but when the illusion is removed, he's more grounded then Bush. Carville has to relate this just as Rove did with Bush.
Well, you are not agreeing with me, because my point is that substance needs to be more important than image. The Democrats attempt to peddle an image of being the Party of The People, when, in fact, they have nothing but disdain for The People.
OK, the democrats are the party that holds the American people in disdain? Are you kidding me? Again, you writing is great but you need to stay out of the fiction arena and check out a few books based on reality. I hate to break this to you, but you alternate universe is crumbling around you, you can try with all your might to hold it together, but your feeble attempts to hide behind the English language, and to deny the fact that you are living in a fantasy world will only hurt yourself.
So since the Democrat Party in the one holding the American public in contempt, in your own psychosis, answer me a few questions.
Who changed the tax burden of society from the upper class to the middle class? we decreased the amount of taxes on non-earned income to a lower level then a person making $30,000. This isn't holding the American public in disdain in your fantasy world, it's helping it. Who forced the reserves to either re-enlist or face being forced to go to eye-rack? Who is currently giving federal money away to their supporters and in essence creating a federal give away for the spoils of war? Who increased the mercury level in drinking water, then forced the American population to have no recourse in correcting the problem? Who is currently giving tax incentive for manufacturing companies to leave the US and in turn move their jobs overseas? Who is allowing corporations to avoid the American tax system by allowing them to set up fake headquarters in overseas nations (The Cayman Islands currently have over 15,000 American business' registered there to avoid paying taxes.) Who's main goal is creating a two class society which is separated by the working class and the privileged? The attempted revoking of the death tax? Yea, a great idea, why don't we pick the leaders of our country based on who their parents are, rather then their own accomplishments. This is akin to having a NFL team only based on who their parents were, a great idea for society.
The Dems hold the American Party in disdain? HA, you have a great preponderance of ignoring the facts. Such is life when you live in a fantasy world devoid of any real analysis on society, facts and reality.
Quote:
Personally, I found it very difficult to watch Bush during the debate and found myself wishing that he were a lot more polished speaker, but then I got a call from my 20 year old daughter who is quite bright, but not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination, and who has a deep affection for Bush. While I was wincing at the repetitive statements and interminable pauses she was coming to the conclusion that he was doing just fine.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that the the 18% or so of "undecided" voters are going to be swayed by whether or not W can properly pronounce a few words. The people, for whom such nonsense matters, made up their minds long ago.
You missed the point of the debate if this is what you truly believe.
Did I? And what was the point of the debate?
Bush was accused of deplorable behavior and he had no recourse. His hackneyed charm has worn thin with America and they are starting to see the man behind the curtain. Bush is going down, and he's not only taking the ship, but the whole crew with him. You are definitely intelligent enough to know what's right for America, but is not in the plan. America is starting to see this and the mice will follow the piper right off the cliff.[/quote]
Quote:
I believe you are making the mistake of assuming that the inability to deftly respond to any given charge is an admission of guilt.
I never said it was an admission of guilt, but it shows that he has no possible explanation for his deplorable behavior. Avoiding the questions is the same thing as admitting defeat. If somebody accuses you of being a liar, do you reply "you are a flip flopper?" NO, you say I'm not a liar, this is what my decisions were based on and these are the facts. The ability to respond to ANY accusation would have shown a man who believed in his platform, instead he ignored the accusations and came across as a bumbling fool.
You do realize he called Saddam Hussen OBL during a moment of surrealism, don't you? Kerry was accusing him of not knowing what the war on terror was about and who was responsible, yet Bush himself, in a freudian manner, slipped up. It shows not only a man who is unsure of himself, but also a man who has distorted the facts so much, he even has a hard time differentiating fact from truth. Not what I want in a leader.
Quote:
That so much significance is placed in these debates is absurd. Every day I come into contact with incredibly glib individuals who are excellent speakers but who have no substance or who cannot get anything done. John Kerry may or may not be among them, but his victory in the debates proves very little about his ability to lead the nation.
Absolutely an outright falsehood disguised in a manner to justify the fact that the administration has lied to the American public for the past 4 years. John Kerry was finally able to show the American public who he was. He was able to differentiate himself from a Bush campaign add, no matter how much Bush tried to push him into the corner. The fact is, Kerry cornered Bush and now, Bush HAS to go down with the ship. He used Bush's supposed strength against him and this is his downfall.
Remember the quote "being resolve and steadfast is great, but not if you are wrong" This will be the focus of the Kerry campaign over the next month, they will paint Bush as an incompetent leader who doesn't have the intellectual capability to formulate a rational decision but instead turns to a failing plan. You can see this coming too, but you will try with all of your might, and your mastery of prose, to sway American opinion so your guy is elected. Now, who may I ask is holding the American public in disdain, people like Kerry, or people like yourself?
Quote:
Don't misunderstand me, I would have loved to see Bush perform better and win the debate, but the fact that he did not does not validate everything Kerry said, nor does it disqualify him from leading the country for another four years. It may prove to be a fatal failing that costs him the election, but will be a ridiculously overweighted one.
I agree that the debates are overrated, but you have to distinguish the American public from the people who sort through the issues and make a rational decision. The American public rarely thinks about the issues, how do you think Bush beat McCain in 2000? Not because he's a better politician, but because he had the money to dupe an American public into believing his glib one liners. This tactic is not working because of the dire situation we are currently in, Kerry gave AMerica an alternative viewpoint, one away from the Bush commercial. An image away from the Bush lies and propaganda, and the American public bought it. You only need to look at the recent polls to understand this.
