RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


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


S.of.U...Aaaarrghhh. I may agree with him 11%...but(29 posts)

S.of.U...Aaaarrghhh. I may agree with him 11%...butrwbadley
Jan 20, 2004 6:55 PM
it feels like less than that...
Proof at last: Either God doesn't exist, or He has . . . .Cory
Jan 20, 2004 7:22 PM
. . .a previously unreported capacity to suffer liars and fools.
Let no American......................................MR_GRUMPY
Jan 20, 2004 8:03 PM
be unscrewed (unless they make over $100,000 a year.)
I thought it went pretty well :O)Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 8:20 PM
The Dumocrats not standing didn't hurt either. It just reinforced the perception that they are small-minded, bitter little people who are only interested in partisanship rather than progress.

I watched GWBs masterful speech in my friends restaurant with quite a few people - certainly a mix of Rs and Ds, and he received a resounding thumbs-up! The bartender said he was a democrat and had voted for Gore, but was happy GWB was in office for this time in our nation's history. Oh, by the way, he's an ex-marine. Said he's voting for GWB in November. Hooah!!!

While driving in my truck earlier, I was listening to Mark Levin and he cited some Professor of political science who did a study of the next election - he said that the study based on a myriad of polls suggests that the Senate will possibly have 60 republicans next term, republicans will gain more seats in the House and GWB will win in a landslide. Man life is good :O)
I remember all those timesOldEdScott
Jan 21, 2004 6:45 AM
the Republicans stood during Democrat State of the Union speeches ...
Hooah is Army lingo. Oorah is Marine lingo. Get it straight. nmeyebob
Jan 21, 2004 8:33 AM
Sorry!Live Steam
Jan 21, 2004 11:23 AM
Onomatopoeia isn't my strong suit, especially after a few JD's on the rocks :O)
Setting the substance aside...dr hoo
Jan 21, 2004 4:36 AM
... and just looking at the style of the speech, I would grade it a B or a B+. Stong start, wandering middle, and a good finish. I think B+ overall.

First of all, speaking to an audience that interrupts all the time with applause makes it hard to give a great speech. It is very hard to establish a good rhythm and flow.

Bush started off strong. War makes for good speeches, and Bush fully believes in the war. That belief comes through. His cadence was good, his phrasing was mostly good.

However, he had perhaps one of the weakest, mealy mouthed phrases I have heard in a SotU speech ever. Something like "...found dozens of weapons of mass destruction program activities".

Dozens is weak. Weapons of mass destruction (strong) programs (weaker) activities (very weak). His weak language was very ineffective. I saw one of those tracking things, where a room full of dems and reps hold buttons down to indicate the speech is going well or poorly. When he said that line, both tracks fell straight down, so it was not just me. Normally I would not expect this kind of thing to be in one of his speeches, but they clearly had to say something on the topic.

There were a few other phrases that fell on my ears as clunkers, but I have a feeling they worked for the uncritical right.

The domestic stuff verged on laundry list. He did not have a unifying theme to tie the disparate programs together. Clinton liked to link many programs with phrases like "grow the economy". If Bush had used something, even a cliche like "empower the individual" over and over, it would have helped. "Liberty of self sufficiency". Heck, anything repeated a good 5 times would have helped. Rhetoric 101.

The democrats did this, Daschle at least, with the phrase "opportunity society". It was one of the better minority responses I have heard, but they always bite compared to the SotU address. A tag team C- on style.
Speech was ok until...gf99
Jan 21, 2004 4:54 AM
... he got around to domestic issues. Just tossing raw meat to the wacko right. Are there any small gov't personal liberty types left in the GOP, or only wannabe ayatollahs?

Almost makes me think about voting Democrat. My head hurts.
Be afraid, be very afraidSpoiler
Jan 21, 2004 5:43 AM
At least that's the message. I'm tired of being told I should be afraid of the world. I'm tired of being told the president is the only thing protecting me from the overwhelming dangers of the outside world. It may not be PC, but 9/11 is over. It was a single incident. The world isn't out to get me. And even if it was, I'd still spend my time enjoying my freedom, rather than hunkering down in a $90 billion rat hole.
Indeed, that message was and has been pounded...rwbadley
Jan 21, 2004 7:45 AM
into the ground.

"The World is full of vermin, and I am the rat trap" Bush happily exclaims. hmmm...maybe, tho' I prefer if he were more the strong silent type about it than to shout from the treetops how great his conquests have been. That character issue is enough for me to want to send him down the road.

The sideshow sneer from the tinhorn Texan... When he stopped his speech to pause for applause, and to gaze around the room with that self satisfied smurk, the image of his 'adoring' constituents etc... I would like to have reached through the TV tube and wrung his pencil neck...I guess I have my own character flaws, one of them seems difficulty in granting GW authority over any aspect that may affect my existence...;-p

Given all that, I will say he has come a long way as a speaker. Three years ago GW could not speak his way out of a paper bag and last night definitely showed the world of progress he has made on that issue.

I still disagree greatly with his stance on many issues, but that would appear to be My problem, as the bulk of the population seems to be infatuated with the varmint...
Now ya know what I endured for the prior 8 years good buddy nmLive Steam
Jan 21, 2004 7:53 AM
Clinton was an excellent speakerDuane Gran
Jan 21, 2004 8:38 AM
I didn't always agree with Clinton's politics, but he was on pare with Reagan in terms of public speaking and charisma. I know your politics are perpendicular to Clinton's, but I hope you can appreciate how effective he was at the lectern.
or you can just forget about the WTC bombing and 9/11No_sprint
Jan 21, 2004 7:55 AM
and just put things back the way they were prior and just hope, false hope, but some hope nonetheless I suppose...
Not likely, and not my point...rwbadley
Jan 21, 2004 8:07 AM
Here's an illustration.

Reno's last mayor was the same sort of blustery sort. Lots of noise and 'I'm gonna' and 'Looky what I did' sort of rubbish. It seemed like nothing was done without so much fanfare it was quite tiring.

The current mayor you never hear much about, but let me tell you I sure have seen evidence of positive change in the operation of the city.

The results speak for themselves. If things were just taken care of without all the histrionics from GW, I would be more satisfied.
I understandNo_sprint
Jan 21, 2004 8:29 AM
and really don't care myself, as long as things have changed from the prior admin. to now, and they have.

Once again, I understand your point.
Does anyone get the feeling that GWB has not gone a singlebboc
Jan 21, 2004 9:15 AM
day since 9-11-2001 without mentioning 9-11 in a speech? If he is reelected will we still hear about it from him every day for the next five years? The nation will never heal with that kind of verbal pounding. If you are like No-Sprint, and think that this is good, when would you consider it time to let it lie. Never? When the war against terrorism is won (which is as likely as winning the war on drugs)?
Fear...Jon Billheimer
Jan 21, 2004 10:25 AM
...,like sex, sells. My perception is that this is what singularly distinguishes "conservative" politics in the U.S. from everything else. There is nothing classically conservative in neocon policies. They're all about authoritarian statism and the need to extend empire ideas which are rooted in fear of outsiders and and fear of dissent within. An American friend of mine, originally from Texas, who is a business school prof at the U of A, characterizes the Bush republicans as "apocalyptic" and fear-driven in their worldview. I think he's right.
We used to have real leaders. . .czardonic
Jan 21, 2004 10:32 AM
    "I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days. . ."


(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/)
The question I have is...........Len J
Jan 21, 2004 10:54 AM
does the current administration acually believe that what they are propagating is the truth or are they "Manipulating" the truth for their own agenda?

Either way it is scary, I'm not sure which one scares me more.

I suspect that, in there opinion, there is more truth (to them) than manipulation.

Len
Evangelical Post-moderists? Trickle-down Moralists?czardonic
Jan 21, 2004 11:03 AM
The truth is a fairweather friend.

But surely they are good, and what is good for them is good for all and bad for the evil-ones.
Excellent!!! (nm)Jon Billheimer
Jan 21, 2004 11:06 AM
Don't you think it cuts both ways ?HouseMoney
Jan 21, 2004 11:32 AM
I can think of more than a few issues where the Left utilizes fear as a political tactic, no? If the issue involves senior citizens, the poor, &/or minorities, you can almost count on it.
Don't you think it cuts both ways ?Jon Billheimer
Jan 21, 2004 11:47 AM
Of course you're right--to a point. However, when I think of positive, visionary leadership, particularly presidential leadership, great Republican presidents don't come to mind, Democratic ones do, e.g. Roosevelt and Kennedy. Reagan had us all whipped up over the Evil Empire and Bush's vision is straight out of Bob Jones University: behold the apocalypse is upon us! What irks me as much about Bush as anything is that he used peoples' justifiable fear and revulsion over the destruction of the WTC to foist a prior foreign policy decision on the American people: that is the adoption of unilateralism as the key component of American foreign policy and the unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq. This after he campaigned on a foreign policy platform of multilateralism and concensus building. Similar behaviour by the former Soviet Union and China in the past half-century has elicited nothing but moral and political condemnation from the United States...and most of the American people can't see through the sham and hypocrisy of it all! Fear both blinds and motivates.
Fear can paralyze and motivate.eyebob
Jan 21, 2004 3:03 PM
It's everywhere. I hate when those on the left play to the fears of their base to build support just as much as when those on the right do it. In this case, it's inexusable because lives are at stake. Real lives. On the groud in Iraq kind of lives. The arrogance that this administration has shown (hubris is a euphemism) really scares me. I hope that they do find terror cells there. I hope that they do find WMD. I hope that we are made safer because of this, just so my greater fears of this arrogance run amok are unfounded. However, in light of the recent reports from the Army War College and others that support the idea that we've been mislead (either intentionally or not) I don't think that that's gonna come true.

BT
A great leader I worked for once said..........Len J
Jan 21, 2004 4:16 PM
"A Leader is a dealer of Hope!"

You can motivate with fear for only so long before the message gets so diluted as to be ineffective. A real leader, the best leaders, point out the reality, but at the same time create an atmosphere of hope, a sense that, even though it's bad, here is how it will get better, and we can get there if we only .............

People need hope amidst the fear, life is hard, difficlt times require hope to be tolerable. Leadership is about belief. Without hope, there is no belief. Without hope, one can't lead themselves, let alone a country.

This administration deals fear, not hope. This will wear thin, and inhibit his ability to lead (in the absence of another 9/11 (God forbid)).

This administration is so convinced that they are right, and have so little regard for the people they are supposed to be leading, that they don't believe they need to deal hope. So far it has worked for them, but I don't believe it is sustainable.

Len
So you choose to compare the US to two communist ...Live Steam
Jan 21, 2004 7:49 PM
countries, both of which have horrendous human rights records? This is an appropriate comparison? Jon, don't you think that's a bit over the top?

Both China and the USSR invaded with the intent to occupy and annex the riches and natural resources of the vanquished. Please show me where that has been our expressed or clandestine intent.
if it were clandestine,rufus
Jan 21, 2004 8:36 PM
then we wouldn't know about it, would we smart guy?
Of course there are no riches to be found in Iraq.bboc
Jan 22, 2004 2:52 PM
It is utterly inconceivable that the US wants anything to do with Iraqi oil, we only want to help those poor opressed people. HEAD IN THE SAND.

Of course the annexation of Iraq oil won't be the expressed intent of the war. The clandestine intent is forever debatable since it is clandestine.

Live Steam For Prez!