|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
|
Neither is going to win the 2008 election.
President McCain
Vice-President Giuliani
|
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
|
sigh... who cares if a candidate can speak well or not? in the end it is their platform and proposed agenda we should examine...
|
On January 26 2007 15:24 sith wrote:
I don't like Hilary Clinton because of the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco. Really, nobody even tried to understand what videogames are about and why Grand Theft Auto is a success in general. She's an idiot.
Ah, now I remember that a little better. I think she said something like "video game violence is a threat to society". She sounded like Bush, except Bush probably doesn't give a damn about video games.
|
1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years.
2. Clinton would ruin this country. I would rather have Bush as pres for another 8 years than have her in for even 1.
Plus alot of american people are dumbfucks and my guess would be that they vote for Obama just to have the first black pres, or vote for hilary just to have the first woman pres, regardless of their views.
|
|
|
On January 26 2007 16:47 Apophis wrote:
1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years.
I view this as a good thing.
|
On January 26 2007 16:47 Apophis wrote:
1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years.
He was also a state senator for 8 years before that. Compared to people who were governors like Bush and Clinton, he seems experienced enough.
It is pretty hard to run for President if you were a Senator for very long. It is very hard to have a good record for a long time and even if you do it is really easy to take things out of context that happened 10+ years ago. There also seems to be a catch 22 where if you keep yourself clean, you don't get any attention or anything to make you stand out, and if you do get enough attention it is bound to come with some controversy.
Plus, he would not be alone. All these elected officials have big teams.
|
On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote:
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.)
You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times.
|
On January 26 2007 16:18 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote. Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours. I don't know why people CONTINUE to think there is a correlation between forensic skill and intelligence after 6 years of Bush. Competence != intelligence.
|
On January 26 2007 16:47 Apophis wrote:
1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years.
2. Clinton would ruin this country. I would rather have Bush as pres for another 8 years than have her in for even 1.
Plus alot of american people are dumbfucks and my guess would be that they vote for Obama just to have the first black pres, or vote for hilary just to have the first woman pres, regardless of their views.
obama has shown great work as a senator here in IL and is a much more promising, much less radical candidate than clinton. obama fighting
|
On January 26 2007 17:02 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote:
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about. He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.) You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times.
LOL @ "poor argumentation" with no counterpoint.
|
On January 26 2007 15:42 pr0n wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 15:33 Clutch3 wrote:
And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit. Actually it was a play on the fact that he presented the candidates using one's first name and the other's last name, making it sound funny because it wasn't parallel. Therefore I introduced the candidates using middle names (as well as to draw attention to the fact that he misspelled both of their names). I'm sorry if you didn't get the joke.
It was a bad joke... I doubt that many people got it.
And you know perfectly well why Servo was using Hillary's first name, to avoid confusion with Bill. Go watch some TV news, you will see that many, if not most, pundits and talking heads do the same thing.
|
On January 26 2007 17:03 pr0n wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 16:18 Kennigit wrote:On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote. Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care. Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours.
and no, bush is not a smart guy. speaking skill doesn't always dictate intelligence, but being a complete and total dumbass does.
|
On January 26 2007 17:05 pr0n wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 17:02 Clutch3 wrote:On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote:
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about. He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.) You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times. LOL @ "poor argumentation" with no counterpoint.
My counterpoints regarding your argumentation are in my first response to you. Just because you didn't try to respond to any of them doesn't mean they aren't there.
|
On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote:
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround
Well, I'll keep working on it! BTW, you spelled 2 of those wrong.
and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you.
More importantly he was pointlessly rude to me, as he has been in previous threads.
|
remember during elections when bush just stood there because he didnt understand the question everyone was like "........."
|
On January 26 2007 17:08 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote:
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround Well, I'll keep working on it! BTW, you spelled 2 of those wrong. More importantly he was pointlessly rude to me, as he has been in previous threads.
Pointlessly rude? How many times do people need to explain the lack of a correlation between speaking prowess and intelligence before you understand? I thought your previous posts indicated you dropped this, but now I see you are still rudely defending yourself instead of simply saying "it's not an issue."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hilary is probably better as far as policy goes, i dont think she's serious about any ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
