Bush's Speechwriting

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So a person of strong conviction is "difficult to listen to"? Scared of the truth? People who speak with conviction scare you?

CkG

Conviction is not the same as "truth", and I am surprised that you would put up such a fallacious equation.

Hitler spoke with conviction. So does bin Laden.

Bush does not speak with conviction, he speaks with ambiguity. His words are crafted such that he is always correct, and if you disagree with him, you are irrefutably on the side of "evil". This is not "conviction".

CkG - you've provided no rebuttal to the article itself, no counter-argument. I am surprised that you would commence a personal attack with no relevence to the original question or idea posed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CkG - I couldn't care less about discrediting Bush. I simply find his speeches difficult to listen to, that they rouse some sort of emotions within me, and finally found an article that identified my response.

So a person of strong conviction is "difficult to listen to"? Scared of the truth? People who speak with conviction scare you?

CkG

Wow, this article is amazing. I think it explains CkG's 'defend Bush at all cost' mentality:

However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism.

Look CAD, it's going to be OK. We're going to find someone who can replace Bush. No, shhhh, it'll be all right. Listen, we'll put someone in the White House that can balance the budget, maybe stop freaking you out with all those terror alerts. Doesn't that sound good? Yes? We'll stop bombing anyone who looks at us funny. Eventually, maybe the world will start to like us again. You'd like that wouldn't you?

 

[Lucky]

Wow, this article is amazing. I think it explains CkG's 'defend Bush at all cost' mentality:

No, rather that paragraph perfectly explains why it is "drivel". It assumes those who support bush do not do so because of his ideas but rather because they are irrational and dependent.

Good article though, thanks for the link. Here's something I found interesting:

Would not a more appropriate speech be this one, the one immediately following the start of the iraq bombing? (link)


Or how about the 9/20 speech? Why is that one speech in particular picked? Did it come from drawing paper slips in a hat or did the writer conciously choose it in order to make his/her point?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Lucky
Would not a more appropriate speech be this one, the one immediately following the start of the iraq bombing? (link)


Or how about the 9/20 speech? Why is that one speech in particular picked? Did it come from drawing paper slips in a hat or did the writer conciously choose it in order to make his/her point?

I would imagine the writer consciously chose it because it most clearly illustrated her point. She has bias, just as any other columnist does, and I am not taking her words as gospel. By posting this I hoped to initiate some sort of dialogue or exchange of ideas about his speechwriting, to see if anyone else had noticed similar things about Bush, or whether they disagreed completely with my thoughts.

 

[Lucky]

I understand your question, and it's a genuine one. It's just hard for me to read the article without completely dismissing the basic points of it...because it's not objective.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I understand your question, and it's a genuine one. It's just hard for me to read the article without completely dismissing the basic points of it...because it's not objective.

Is anything really that objective? What would she have to have included to make it objective? I am sure if I were to email her asking her that same question about his pre-Iraq speech, she could probably give a response. (hmm, maybe I should do that)

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
I understand your question, and it's a genuine one. It's just hard for me to read the article without completely dismissing the basic points of it...because it's not objective.

Is anything really that objective? What would she have to have included to make it objective? I am sure if I were to email her asking her that same question about his pre-Iraq speech, she could probably give a response. (hmm, maybe I should do that)

Well I'm a journalist so I guess I expect more out of stuff like this, although I note its commentary. I feel that anything that even pretends to seriously compare and contrast something on this level should at least on its face, be honest and objective. How it is not objective?

1. The first sentence.
2. "Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush's political agenda is out of step with most Americans' core beliefs."
3. "Yet the public, their electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by personalization" (I.E, anyone who believes in what he is saying is brainwashed)
4. beforementioned selective statistics. As another example, the writer quotes roosevelt the day after pearl harbor and contrasts it with Bush's 9/20 speech, picking out negative passages and throwing them together with a bunch of ...'s. While convienently ignoring the multiple positive ones. He waxes poetically about the beautiful verse of roosevelt but calls bush's speech "rhetoric".



An honest compare and contrast cannot be realistically taken at face with such obvious hatred for the man. The writer would have been much more effective if HIS rhetoric was taken out.

Although then I suppose it would be news, and not commentary.

 

[HappyGamer2]

delete

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2085604" target=blank>Little Bush is another slick willy, only worse</A>

This has already been posted, and is not appropriate for this discussion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So a person of strong conviction is "difficult to listen to"? Scared of the truth? People who speak with conviction scare you?

CkG

Conviction is not the same as "truth", and I am surprised that you would put up such a fallacious equation.

Hitler spoke with conviction. So does bin Laden.

Bush does not speak with conviction, he speaks with ambiguity. His words are crafted such that he is always correct, and if you disagree with him, you are irrefutably on the side of "evil". This is not "conviction".

CkG - you've provided no rebuttal to the article itself, no counter-argument. I am surprised that you would commence a personal attack with no relevence to the original question or idea posed.

There was no "personal attack" - there were only questions. YOU said that it "identified my response" My questions were valid since your article made it sound like Bush was a man of conviction and made it sound like it was a bad thing. YOU made the leap that "truth"="conviction", I asked 2 separate questions. But anyway, His speeches were truth and they were also spoken with conviction. Do you feel threatened by my questions? is that why you call them a personal attack?

So again I ask - are you scared of the bad man because he speaks with conviction?


DM - get over yourself. I am not scared of terror alerts. And yes, I'd probably vote for a person who would force Congress to balance the budget - as long as that person wasn't going to increase taxes -too bad no candidate currently exists that will do so. Oh, and DM - why are you so afraid of, that you feel it your "patriotic" duty to question Bush? The country is still here dispite the fact that Bush has been the President for over 2.5 years. Heck -Texas is still there and they had to "put up with" him for how long? Yep, I guess this whole country is falling apart

Lucky - You hit the nail on the head. I would add that this guy is doing the same thing that he is accusing Bush of doing. His "article" is full of the negative Bush things and has few(if any) possitive things to say. Maybe that is why it was soooo tough to sit through

CkG

 

[phillyTIM]

there's really nothing positive about bush to say, i'd guess is the reason ... lol

 

[Lonyo]

I can't listen to Bush speaking either, it's so distressing, I have to actually leave the room. During the Iraq war, I was in and out all the time. I don't know why, but his speaches cause me real problems.
Blair on the other hand, I can just laugh at, much more enjoyable.

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem I see with the advice the author gives to 'put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism' is failure to account for and define the nature of the appeal of the negative. Bush uses negativity and fear to control people. I have maintained that point all along. The neocon is a rudderless person of fear that grafts self will to power as a scab on that wound. What is the inner mechanism that allows humanity to be driven from pillar to post in the war of good and evil.

I've explained it a million times. Everybody was born good. Core optimism was our birth right...the inalienable truths. But we were put down as children before we had the sophistication and defensive armor to protect ourselves. We were made to hate ourselves and it's on that negative self hate the politicians play. Bush wants you to feel that ancient threat to your self respect. He uses your fear of remembering what happened as a means of control. It isn't a matter of conscious understanding of the process. It's a machiavellian recognition of how we are and how we can be controlled. It doesn't work if you are aware of what you feel, if you have been inside your inner hell. The man who can remember is free from the past. Until humanity awakens from the dream they've spun of false hope built on fear, somebody like Bush can always come along and push those hidden buttons. Optimism is only really possible after ones been deep in sh!t. The ship has capsized and you have to dive to swim up. There is a horrible threat in the world. It's feeling what you feel. The good news is that the feeling is a lie. But until you feel it you will never know.

 

[phillyTIM]

i remember the day, one late afternoon a few weeks before bush's invasion, when bush came on tv, on a special report, and tried to be stern and say that we're not gonna take iraq's deception anymore dammit!... i laughed so friggin' hard because you can always see when bush makes an attempt to be serious about something he saids; yet you know he's just spewing out S##T to justify what he really is doing behind the scenes, and you just have to laugh.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

DM - get over yourself. I am not scared of terror alerts. And yes, I'd probably vote for a person who would force Congress to balance the budget - as long as that person wasn't going to increase taxes -too bad no candidate currently exists that will do so. Oh, and DM - why are you so afraid of, that you feel it your "patriotic" duty to question Bush? The country is still here dispite the fact that Bush has been the President for over 2.5 years. Heck -Texas is still there and they had to "put up with" him for how long? Yep, I guess this whole country is falling apart

Why do you feel that it's so wrong to criticize Bush? Why do you care so much? What's the point of all this, really? I mean, I sit here and criticize Bush, you sit there and defend him. Nobody's changed their opinions either way because of it. It's an amusing distraction, but not much more than that.

I guess in general though, I don't understand your self-appointed role in all of this. It's almost like you fancy yourself some sort of "patriotic superhero" that has to step out in front of Bush whenever there's an attack. Again, why do you even care? If the accusations around here are as baseless as you always say, why not just let them ride themselves out? You're only serving to draw more attention to them...

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

DM - get over yourself. I am not scared of terror alerts. And yes, I'd probably vote for a person who would force Congress to balance the budget - as long as that person wasn't going to increase taxes -too bad no candidate currently exists that will do so. Oh, and DM - why are you so afraid of, that you feel it your "patriotic" duty to question Bush? The country is still here dispite the fact that Bush has been the President for over 2.5 years. Heck -Texas is still there and they had to "put up with" him for how long? Yep, I guess this whole country is falling apart

Why do you feel that it's so wrong to criticize Bush? Why do you care so much? What's the point of all this, really? I mean, I sit here and criticize Bush, you sit there and defend him. Nobody's changed their opinions either way because of it. It's an amusing distraction, but not much more than that.

I guess in general though, I don't understand your self-appointed role in all of this. It's almost like you fancy yourself some sort of "patriotic superhero" that has to step out in front of Bush whenever there's an attack. Again, why do you even care? If the accusations around here are as baseless as you always say, why not just let them ride themselves out? You're only serving to draw more attention to them...

Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on.

Are you reading this CkG? You and a few other posters on these forums should start a support group for people suffering from desparate dependency.