's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

GW's bad speech style(49 posts)

GW's bad speech stylestinkfoot247
May 4, 2003 6:41 PM
I think our President is effective in foreign policy but a little lagging in the economy. His tax cut's are a horrible idea, watch C-span to find out why, yeah it sounds great, but it will put us in the whole. CNN doesn't give you the details. What I really posted to say though is I can't F$%%$%ing stand how slow the guy talks. He pauses too often and too long like he's anticipating an applause every 5 words. ooooooo I hate it soo much. Anybody else feel this way. I would have posted in the GW kicks A$$ but I wanted to be noticed and I don't feel that strongly for him.
Two schools of thought about that....cory
May 4, 2003 8:53 PM
I read (sorry, can't remember where) a piece about that a month or two ago.
(Wait--in the interest of full disclosure, I should say I can't stand him. I think he's a liar and a moron, and if it weren't for 9/11 and the war, his approval would be 32 percent and falling, on the economy, the environment and social issues.)
But besides that, the two theories on his speaking were, No. 1, that that's as well as he can do. He's not a genius, he may have some reading or learning disabilities that he's overcome, and he's reading as well as he can. His cadence and rhythm seem to support that--every talk sounds the same, almost every SENTENCE sounds the same. Listen for the beat instead of the lyrics and you'll pick it up.
No. 2 was that it's working for him, so why change? People don't like to be talked down to, and he doesn't. The evidence for that included his mispronunciation of words, like "noo-kyew-lerr," that he and his advisors KNOW he's saying wrong, but he doesn't change.
Maybe you should be worrying about ...Live Steam
May 5, 2003 5:31 AM
your writing "style" :O) You used "cut's" incorrectly. It should be "cuts". It is not being possessive and "it's" not a contraction of "cut is". It should read - "cuts". You also used the word "whole" incorrectly. You put people in a "hole". Aside form the run on sentences and poor phraseology, everything else looks OK :O)

Don't hold back any of your thoughts on GW. Hate is a very powerful emotion. How could watching this man speak on TV drive you to "hate"?

Oh, by the way, you were noticed :O)
Maybe you should be worrying...filtersweep
May 5, 2003 9:46 AM
We all know this is live steam's personal soap box...;)

I've always been baffled by GW's herky jerky speech pattern, like the teleprompter might be phonetically spelling everything out. GW is the only person I've every heard say EEE-Rack...

There have been some serious smoke screens masking the economy- and no one in the so-called "liberal media" has been addressing the economy in any detail.
The economy is utterly and totally in the tank.OldEdScott
May 5, 2003 9:58 AM
See the latest unemployment figures? See the latest projections of the deficit/national debt if the GOP's 'little bitty' tax cut is enacted? Checked your 401K statement lately?

Are you better off now than you were before the Bush Imperium usurped the electoral process and installed its princeling in the White House (courtesy of a dangerously politicized Supreme Court that came shockingly close to collusion with the Imperium's fixers)?

It is a measure of the conservative media bias in this country that none of this is being properly reported, as they continue to pound their jingo drums in approval of the glorious whipping of a country that didn't choose to fight.

My Derby hangover has made me shrill.
Yo, Steam: If you can't rebut the message, kill the messenger?cory
May 5, 2003 7:47 PM
NO. I don't agree with the message, but ...Live Steam
May 6, 2003 5:24 AM
I thought I would point out some of his errors just in case he planned on running for President one day. Then he wouldn't have to be embarrassed about his writing skills :O)
No worry! This president has proved thatOldEdScott
May 6, 2003 6:27 AM
there's no possibility of embarrassment over language skills.
Our nation's most pioneering mush-mouth! (nm)czardonic
May 6, 2003 10:27 AM
tax cuts -- not requiredDougSloan
May 5, 2003 6:32 AM
Everyone who is against tax cuts, you do realize that you are free to send the IRS as much of your income as you like. Has anyone ever done that -- put your money where your mouth is?

Here you go, Steam -- Red meat!OldEdScott
May 5, 2003 7:14 AM
Great opportunity for you to weigh in against 'bleeding heart' liberals who want to spend OTHER people's money on social programs instead of their own!

Let 'er rip! I'm sick of being a p.w., I want to be a bleeding heart.

P.S. By the same token, those who are for tax cuts are, presumably, free to send a check to the government to help cover the trillion dollar deficits the 'little bitty' tax cuts are going to create. As fiscally responsible conservatives, surely they plan to do so.
Hell, I'll state the obvious53T
May 5, 2003 7:23 AM
Nothing in the tax code ever contributed to a deficit, only spending can do that. Why don't we take a look at some spending cuts. Let's start with all the wealth-transfer programs and move on from there.
Exactly. Good thinking there.OldEdScott
May 5, 2003 7:34 AM
That's been the Repub agenda -- run up the deficits so high that we HAVE to cut spending. That's why George Bush and his Republican Congress are the most wildly free-spending executive-legislative tag team in the history of the American Republic. It's fiendishly clever -- spend like drunken sailors on shore leave in Perth (sorry Scott), bankrupt the country because at the same time you're cutting taxes, then dismantle government out of dire necessity. You guys are smart guys, all right.
David Stockman admitted as much...PdxMark
May 5, 2003 8:38 AM
Reagan's old supply-side budget guru admitted that Reagan's tax cuts would never, ever pay for themselves by spurring economic growth. GBI was almost right... supply-side economics weren't voodoo, they were a lie in support of a Republican ulterior motive. The purpose of the cuts was to create sky-rocketing deficits that would constrain domestic spending.

Republicans go for the stunningly huge policy lies... taxes, rationale for war, you pick it, and they are lying about a national policy issue. It's even better that they are indignant over Clinton lying about extra-marital sex... The big lies are always the best...
Yep. GOP = Liars and con artists.OldEdScott
May 5, 2003 9:00 AM
There's been way too much unanswered Democrat bashing lately. Thought I'd throw out a wild charge from our side.
Liars and con artists = Dick GephardtLive Steam
May 5, 2003 12:51 PM
How about that guy telling local union workers that his dad was proud union man and happy to be paying his dues. Dick's brother said his father hated the union and was a Republican too boot :O) Those Dumocrats sure know how to spin 'em hey :O) How are the synapses firing today Old Ed? Too much of the hair?
Liars and con artists: GOP does it rightPdxMark
May 5, 2003 1:02 PM
You cite a "lie" about how Gephardt's father felt about his union membership (Gep didn't even apparently say he wasn't a Repub) but stand up behind and support lies about the reasons for war with Iraq and the intended effects of tax cuts ... I can see why you hate panty wastes... their "lies" are so meaningless and inconsequential - if you want huge public policy lies, no-one dies it like a Republican President
Gray Davis is doing a bang-up job of it, too nmDougSloan
May 5, 2003 8:49 AM
If only Big Dick Cheney would manipulate anotherOldEdScott
May 5, 2003 9:06 AM
electricity shortage for the benefit of his energy corp pals, we'd have a REAL crisis on our hands there. Sigh. We Dems just can't seem to get it right.
Damn Straight (nm)53T
May 5, 2003 9:18 AM
great, let's start with mcdonalds.rufus
May 5, 2003 8:07 AM
let's stop giving them government money for them to use for marketing in foreign countries.

after that, we can get to all the subsidies going out to companies as a result of the administration's energy plan.
Here you go, Steam -- Red meat!BikeViking
May 5, 2003 8:28 AM
No one wants to talk about it, but I would solve that by cutting spending. Isn't it strange how gov't spending increases above the annual inflation rates.

Gov't has a voracious appetite for money.

For example, I still am wonddering why we are spending 15 BILLION to help with the world AIDS problem. What are other nations contributing? If the money HAS to be spent, a vaccine would be a far better option because education in the hopes to arrest unprotected sexual activity is not going to work.

Individuals can take out their own loans instead of Gov doing itContinental
May 5, 2003 7:49 AM
My take on tax cuts is a little different. If an individual wants to take out a loan, spend it now, and pay later, fine. I don't like the Goverment taking out large loans on behalf of myself and others. As much as practical, the decision to go into debt should be a personal decision, not a Government decision. I do understand that some public debt is probably beneficial and is the mechanism for expanding the money supply, but most economists that I've heard lately agree that the projected deficit is a threat to the economy. Tax cuts are easy, spending cuts are hard. It's a recipe with a huge risk of spiraling debt, high interest rates, and economic stagnation.
aren't we loaning the government money?DougSloan
May 5, 2003 8:34 AM
Doesn't deficit spending amount to people loaning the government money via treasure bonds, etc.? What if no one bought them?

The interest rate goes up until the bonds sellContinental
May 5, 2003 12:09 PM
If the interest rate gets high enough then investors, either foriegn or domestic, will buy the bonds. This tends to drive up interest rates on private loans. That's a big part of the potential problem. For me personally, if there's a huge tax cut and I get to keep $1000 per year, I would lose money if the prime rate also increases by 1 percentage point.
while we're at itstinkfoot247
May 5, 2003 8:53 AM
why not just make the tax system voluntary.
It is voluntary53T
May 5, 2003 9:06 AM
...just like living in the US. Funny how many people from abroad think it's worth it.
Sure! Just chip in whatever we feel like!OldEdScott
May 5, 2003 9:08 AM
After all, it's OUR money etc etc.
interesting ideaDougSloan
May 5, 2003 9:27 AM
Interesting. How much do you think liberals vs. conservatives would contribute if it were individually voluntary, sort of like church? Sort of "instant democracy" at work. Don't like something the government is doing, hold back your check that month...

Remind me.....cycleaddict
May 5, 2003 9:39 AM
Just how many years back were the conservatives clamoring for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget? Was it before or after they were clamoring for term limits? Or was it before Newt had his affair? Or was it after Bennet was done at the crap tables? Etc., etc.........
This is so much fun, for a change!!!!!

Oh yeah, listening to W reading a speech is almost as painful as watching him--what's with the smirk and those things he does with his mouth?
I thought he looked like Barney Fife in a flight suit theOldEdScott
May 5, 2003 9:44 AM
other day, with that uncool little 'I'm cool' jiggle he was doing. But that's just me.

And don't get me started on a decade of GOP duplicity on balanced budgets, term limits, 'humble' foreign policy, plus hypocritical ginch chasing and Virtues. It's all too much for a hangovered spin doctor to process.
I would have thought that would get your juices flowing.purplepaul
May 5, 2003 9:53 AM
I have two theories:

1. When things are going well, people get greedy and want more. Hence, take the surplus and destroy it.

2. It's not in our nature to accept that things are going well, so we must sabotage it. Hence, take the surplus and destroy it.

Paging Dr. Freud.
LMAO.....where have guys been......CARBON110
May 5, 2003 10:00 AM
There has been so much Republican GWB kissing I was begining to think I was alone. I asked a very intelligent man this weekend what he thought about GW. Now this guy has credentials; poitics,philosophy,state Government,family,kids,he balances budgets works with neighboring states etc. So I said, what's your opinion? Looking for a a detailed, articulate response involving several historical references and some complex idea about his perception whether for or against....he simply hesitated and stated one sentance:
""I think he is stupid"" There was a silence after he spoke, and I wasnt sure I heard him correctly since it was a highly unlike him statement. So I said..uhhh I dind't hear you what? He repeated the words and I just laughed and we moved on to something else.
Other than the one on your head...53T
May 5, 2003 11:13 AM
...what is your point? A hack State rep thinks GWB is stupid. There are many State reps that I think are stupid. (of course I have "credentials" as well)

Politics, philosophy, state government, you mean he is a BS artist? I can't help but think of the scene in that Mel Brooks movie at the ancient Roman unemployment office.

Now that you bring it up, I'll pit GWB against any State rep in a test of leadership, governance, or public speaking.
Don't be so Obtuse 53T "nm"CARBON110
May 5, 2003 12:07 PM
Uhhh, OK53T
May 5, 2003 12:50 PM
Don't be so mean-spirited. Personal attacks are banned here on the forum. Why do we feel compelled to launch them against elected officials? What does it add to list people you know that think the president is stupid?
Ginch? What's a ginch? Is that a Kentucky ...Live Steam
May 5, 2003 12:44 PM
word for sheep or something :O)

The only thing I'll say about the economy is it is cyclical. I am in the market every day and there is no one single factor that can influence it. I think even the simple minded understand that the factors I mentioned prior - the DotCom bubble, the scandals that undermined Wall Street confidence and geopolitical fears generated by 9/11, have all taken their toll. GWB was not responsible for any of them. Again the economy runs in cycles and it will return to an upward, expansionary trend. There needs to be stimulus and incentive for that to occur. Artificially stimulation (tax cut) is nothing new and was implemented by the hero of heroes for the Dumocrats - JFK - he initiated the largest tax cut ever.

The average wage earner - $28k - $63k per year, pays on average 35% in federal and state income tax. Add to that another 6% average for state and local sales tax, and that same average wage earner is shelling out 41% of the annual earnings on tax alone. Yes there are credits for home investment, etc. but the basic number is 41%. Not everyone that is a wage earner owns a home. The ones that don't, see none of the tax shelter that home ownership provides. As the tax rate declines, say 15% - 21%, these people are actually paying a higher percentage of their total income in tax as they do not have the tax shelters to relieve some of the burden and local use and sales tax take a bigger chunk of their after tax dollars.

The tax cut proposed will help those at the lower end of the scale to a greater degree. Those in the upper brackets will also benefit, but the overall impact to their retained income will be smaller as a percentage. The dividend tax cut should help everyone, especially if corporations are the beneficiaries. There will be more incentive for small and mid cap corporation to offer a dividend. The tax savings can be reinvested in the corporation or passed on to the investor.

There is so much waste in the bureaucracy of the government it is tragic. There is even more waste in all of the pork that passes through Congress on useless services and programs. If cutting taxes and then having to cut funding to idiotic programs is required in order to balance the budget, I am all for it. I am tired of Uncle Sam dipping his hand into my pocket because he can't handle a budget. We all have them. Why does the government feel entitled to keep raising theirs at our expense?
I forgot a few things ...Live Steam
May 5, 2003 1:41 PM
In addition to the taxes mentioned above, many of us pay high fees for car registration and road/bridge tolls. Additionally the services charges and taxes added to things such as our telephone bills, cable bills and utility bills is even higher than the local use tax. When one adds in real estate taxes the total tax paid by an average wage earner can approach 50% of the gross. That is unbelievable.

Why are so many against keeping more of the money they worked for?
fine, but which ones are the idiotic programs? (nm)rufus
May 5, 2003 5:40 PM
It will take some research. I'll have to get back to you:O) nmLive Steam
May 6, 2003 12:29 PM
I'll just let my kids & grandkids pay off Dubya's deficitstorquer
May 5, 2003 1:02 PM
And spend my share of the tax cuts on bar tape or something.
Why does everyone bristle at tax cuts?Live Steam
May 5, 2003 1:35 PM
Why don't they demand that their government spend less and be more responsible with what they get from us already? Isn't there a point where it gets untenable? I need to do some research to find out a few tidbits of information. Maybe someone out there knows the answers or where to find them quickly.

1. How many people live in the US including illegal aliens and those on visas?

2. Of those how many actually contribute to the tax base via income tax? Everyone pays sales and use tax generally speaking.

3. How many people are on the public dole in one form or another - including illegal aliens and those on visas?

4. What is collected in tax dollars per person, for each person living in the US legally or illegally? This should include income tax - both local, state and federal and sales and use tax.
Why does everyone bristle at tax cuts?TJeanloz
May 5, 2003 2:12 PM
I can give you some of the answers:

1. 290,000,000 +- (it changes hourly, with people being born, dying and immigrating), but the Census does count and estimate people in the country illegally.

2. This question is not as easy as it looks. 130,000,000 tax returns were filed last year, but some of them must have been married filing jointly (so, two earners, one return). If Ohio (for whom I could find the distribution) can be considered a representative sample, then about 200,000,000 people were accounted for by the IRS.

3. Everybody is on the public dole in one form or another. The military defends us all, the interstates are there for us all. You need to be a little bit more specific about what you want to know - even if we look at only cash grants by the Government, does Social Security count? Do overpaid Postal workers count?

4. This one is also a bit difficult - as it varies pretty widely on a state-by-state basis. But if we look at only the Federal equation, we can easily divide the size of the budget by the population: $1,800,000,000,000 was the best budget estimate I could find / 290,000,000 people; is: $6,206.90 per person.
Overpaid Postal workersbic
May 6, 2003 4:11 AM
They may or may not be overpaid, but they get paid from the sale of stamps, not taxes.
We don't want our money used to buy votes for Bush.czardonic
May 5, 2003 2:19 PM
Seriously, I hope someone has the answers to your questions. Considering the tenacity with which right-wing xenophobes harp on this alleged problem of illegal aliens breaking our bank, I find it quite curious that there's nothing more than malicious innuendo backing up the charges. If there was any hard proof, I have to believe it would have been throughoughly accounted for by now.
GOP's bad employment style: 6% unenployment. I blame128
May 5, 2003 11:39 AM
Actually I don't know who to blame. Not really my area.

But we rattle on about the domestic agenda and I can think only of all the manufacturing jobs exported to Indochina, Hondouras, Brasil etc...and off-shore tax dodges. Broadly speaking, if we brought all the jobs home and paid our fair share of taxes we'd be rolling in the dough, wouldn't we? Where am I wrong? I'm no Buchanan style protectionist, I have no problem with spreading jobs wealth and capital over-seas, but why is this issue so overlooked in the discourse? Or isn't it?

I don't believe it's due to over regulation, and that Americans charge too much for labor, or refuse to do the 'dirty work' and business is sooo overregulated that there is just no way the jobs can't remain here. That may be sonmething, but not enough to explain it all.

Ok, a bit off point regarding our Presiden't soaring oratory style, but I can't see the tax cuts/economic agenda passing even the laugh test until we adress what seems to be the elephant in the room: exporting jobs and dodging currently required taxes (corporate irresponsibility/greed)
That's what the GOP needs to act upon before I find the 'comapssionate' act at all credible. Jobs, we all klnow where the jobs are....don't we?
It's good all the liberals here are speaking outmoneyman
May 5, 2003 2:30 PM
It's really not healthy for you to hide all your frustrations, silently suffering while the GOP runs the wor... I mean country.

Of course, if I was a Democrat and saw what my party had to work with, I would be frustrated too. I really have to feel sorry for the dogs that call Democrats "master". Imagine the beating they take after an hour of TV news.

Now, after you are through screaming in anger, take deep breaths and contemplate this - what goes around comes around. Politics, like the capital markets, are cyclical. Your party, contrary to popular opinion, is not irrelevant. Just under(wo)manned right now. If it's "I'm a deficit hawk" vs. "I'm the Commander-in-Chief of a successful war", guess who wins? Why doesn't the deficit matter with the electorate? Because no one cares. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Okay, now exhale slowly - OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm.........

It's "OM." (nm)eyebob
May 6, 2003 9:43 AM
technically bad, or ineffective?DougSloan
May 7, 2003 7:10 AM
Effectiveness is all that really counts in the end. While a forensics coach might fail the guy, if it works, who's to criticize? With high approval ratings, something is working.