NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush today:

"Our school children should never fear safety when they enter their classroom," Bush said.
:headbang:

It's really getting ridiculous.

Honestly? I don't care, and this is why.

I firmly believe that whatever Bush's wrongs, errors or misjudgments, his manner of speech is not relevant. For Christ's sake, he simply dropped a 'for their' from his sentance. It's not as though he said 'we should shoot children'. If we've become so vindictive as to criticise a man for mis-speaking in a non-relevant way, I don't think that the discussion has merit.

Yeah, he was in Stockton early today. I would've skipped school to allow him to meet my friend Mr. Colt, but I decided against it.

Also: "OMFG SECURITY!!!11!!!ONE!!! RUN AWAY!!!!111!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!" :p

he's not the best public speaker, big deal. neither was Jimmy Carter or Bush Sr. Not everyone has the skills as Reagan and Clinton when it comes to communicating.

really though, it is a non-issue.

Yeah, he was in Stockton early today. I would've skipped school to allow him to meet my friend Mr. Colt, but I decided against it.

Also: "OMFG SECURITY!!!11!!!ONE!!! RUN AWAY!!!!111!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!" :p

Not funny....

It was secrret code for supporting the police state.

Honestly? I don't care, and this is why.

I firmly believe that whatever Bush's wrongs, errors or misjudgments, his manner of speech is not relevant. For Christ's sake, he simply dropped a 'for their' from his sentance. It's not as though he said 'we should shoot children'. If we've become so vindictive as to criticise a man for mis-speaking in a non-relevant way, I don't think that the discussion has merit.

It has merit because it speaks to his incompetence. It has merit because his inability to speak properly is the most readily observable testiment to the fact that he is absolutely unqualified to be the most powerful man in the world. If it was just a gaff here or there it would be one thing. The fact that everytime he has no prepared notes he comes across as an imbecile speaks very loudly. His inability to speak with any real vocabulary and articulateness is a clue as to why everything he touches turns to shit.

Yeah, he was in Stockton early today. I would've skipped school to allow him to meet my friend Mr. Colt, but I decided against it.

Also: "OMFG SECURITY!!!11!!!ONE!!! RUN AWAY!!!!111!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!" :p

I thought Stockton was in Sweden..

he's not the best public speaker, big deal. neither was Jimmy Carter or Bush Sr. Not everyone has the skills as Reagan and Clinton when it comes to communicating.

really though, it is a non-issue.

Jimmy Carter and Bush Sr. - Hell even Dan Quayle - were Nobel Laureates in literature compared to this moron. It's embarrasing and it destroys credibility domestically and internationally when you sound like an idiot everytime you don't have a speech written for you.

Your Wernicke's area (the processing area for speech) does not dictate the overall ability of the individual. While vocabulary is correlated to IQ, it is not a full factor of IQ.

I thought Stockton was in Sweden..

No... That's Stockholm. This is Stockton, California.

It has merit because it speaks to his incompetence. It has merit because his inability to speak properly is the most readily observable testiment to the fact that he is absolutely unqualified to be the most powerful man in the world. If it was just a gaff here or there it would be one thing. The fact that everytime he has no prepared notes he comes across as an imbecile speaks very loudly. His inability to speak with any real vocabulary and articulateness is a clue as to why everything he touches turns to shit.

So, people with speech problems shouldn't consider running for President?

No... That's Stockholm. This is Stockton, California.

How far is that from San Jose?

...

Better yet, how far are you from San Jose?

The fact that everytime he has no prepared notes he comes across as an imbecile speaks very loudly.

Even when he has notes he comes across as an imbecile.

Goddamn! Could You Just One Time Not Sound Like An Idiot!!!

You really do ask for too much. ;)

Your Wernicke's area (the processing area for speech) does not dictate the overall ability of the individual. While vocabulary is correlated to IQ, it is not a full factor of IQ.

Sure. There's spacial reasoning, problem solving and all kinds of other measures of IQ. I'm sure GW could shoot a mean hoop in his day. The problem here is that you think in language. When you are trying to think through complex, abstract ideas you do it with words - just like when you think of the words you want to type before you actually type them. The way you are think of your counter argument to this post as you read it. You're not doing that by judging the distance between your face and the computer screen. At this point that skill has receded and you are using your language skills to try to come up with a counterpunch. Politics and diplomacy are not handled by a halfcourt game to 10. They are handled in very nuanced, complex language. A skill this president consistently proves he lacks and maybe the reason it seems to be this administration's last resort.

It has merit because it speaks to his incompetence. It has merit because his inability to speak properly is the most readily observable testiment to the fact that he is absolutely unqualified to be the most powerful man in the world. If it was just a gaff here or there it would be one thing. The fact that everytime he has no prepared notes he comes across as an imbecile speaks very loudly. His inability to speak with any real vocabulary and articulateness is a clue as to why everything he touches turns to shit.


I have many problems with President Bush, but he is no less qualified than John Kerry was. Bush may stumble through sentences, but he at least has true convictions and the resolve to see them through. He may have morons working for him but his vision on certain issues, especially foreign policy, is what this country needs in my opinion.

He is at his best when he talks about issues that he is most comfortable with such as Tax Cats to spur economic growth and fighting the war on terror. I have yet to see one Democratic candidate who can match his resolve and determination on these issues.

Tax Revenues are soaring and the deficit is on track to be cut in half by 2008, 2 years earlier than Bush promised. Numerous sleeper cells have been broken up not just in England but right here in America and there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11...and it's not like Al-Qaeda isn't trying. Zawahiri puts out a tape pleading for more men to join his organization because most of his "soldiers" have been killed by the American military and Zarqawi before his death was grumbling that they are about to lose Iraq to the Americans unless he can start a civil war and soon.

He pisses me off on alot of things, including his insistence that troop levels were adequate during the Iraq war, but his speech impetement is truly a non-issue. it is just a tool his critics use to try and de-legitimize him and this has been going on since he first announced his run for presidency.

So, people with speech problems shouldn't consider running for President?

Depends on what that speech problem is. If you have a speech impediment but are otherwise extremely articulate - ala Stephen Hawking - then, sure. If you have a problem learning and remembering words and how to use them correctly and in the right context then absolutely not because it means you are either just not very bright or have a learning disability - neither of which are attributes I look for in President of the United States.

It has merit because it speaks to his incompetence. It has merit because his inability to speak properly is the most readily observable testiment to the fact that he is absolutely unqualified to be the most powerful man in the world. If it was just a gaff here or there it would be one thing. The fact that everytime he has no prepared notes he comes across as an imbecile speaks very loudly. His inability to speak with any real vocabulary and articulateness is a clue as to why everything he touches turns to shit.
Let's not strawman, shall we? The ability to speak, or one's social charisma, does not equate with competence. Let us examine a few other leaders for this:

The First Duke of Wellington, nee Arthur Wellesly, was known as a large-nosed, painfully formal and cold sort of man during his service in India. He tended to pontificate, he was somewhat boring and he would go into a cold rage that would last for days when slighted. Of course, he was one of Britain's finest generals. He suffered not one defeat, despite facing several of France's Marshalls and Napoleon, still recognized today as a brilliant leader of men.

Winston Churchill was abrasive, insulting and rude. He tended towards base insult and petty infighting during the First World War, eventually driving out Jackie Fisher from the post of First Sea Lord. He was sarcastic, short and round. Yet he managed to lead the British people through one of their most difficult periods, and is still one of their national heroes beside such as Raleigh or Nelson.

I don't claim that Bush is in any way the statesman that Churchill was, fact is, he's not particularly adept. But my point is that social awkwardness is a poor method of determining ability to lead. I also think that the idea that one must be charming, well combed and never end a sentance with a preposition if one is to run for President is a bad one. As Churchill's example suggests, one can alienate plenty of people, insult others and make gaffes left and right, and still emerge as a skillful and influential leader.

Again: Let's stick to the facts without insulting Bush for his grammar. The facts speak well enough without being particularly spiteful.

EDIT: Also, one can be poorly versed in using the English language without having a learning disability or a low IQ, it's called social awkwardness. While it's all well and good to say that you don't want stupid people for president; no awkward people? No thinkers, rather than flashy demagogues?

How far is that from San Jose?

...

Better yet, how far are you from San Jose?

Quite a few miles actually. I live in Fairfield, which is northern California. San Jose is ALL the way down south.

I assume even in his childhood home he grew up listening to English. His failure to manage to pick it up doesn't speak well of his ability to learn new things. Or even old ones.

I assume even in his childhood home he grew up listening to English. His failure to manage to pick it up doesn't speak well of his ability to learn new things. Or even old ones.

Or any things. ;)

Honestly? I don't care, and this is why.

I firmly believe that whatever Bush's wrongs, errors or misjudgments, his manner of speech is not relevant. For Christ's sake, he simply dropped a 'for their' from his sentance. It's not as though he said 'we should shoot children'. If we've become so vindictive as to criticise a man for mis-speaking in a non-relevant way, I don't think that the discussion has merit.

It's incredibly relevant. Bush frequently cannot say what he means; And just as rarely does he mean what he says. Consider his ineptitude a basic barometer of his competency. I wish more of you had done as much two years ago.

It's incredibly relevant. Bush frequently cannot say what he means; And just as rarely does he mean what he says. Consider his ineptitude a basic barometer of his competency. I wish more of you had done as much two years ago.

Or better yet, six years ago.

Or better yet, six years ago.

Well, Republicans don't take kindly to having all their illusions dispelled in one fell swoop, so I thought I'd play it safe and keep it within a timespan they can more readily lay claim to remembering.

Or better yet, read my second post, in which I provide evidence.

Quite a few miles actually. I live in Fairfield, which is northern California. San Jose is ALL the way down south.

That's San Diego. San Jose is like, a few miles south of San Francisco

Well, Republicans don't take kindly to having all their illusions dispelled in one fell swoop, so I thought I'd play it safe and keep it within a timespan they can more readily lay claim to remembering.

Good idea. :)

Isn't it a bit scary that no where in the Presidential job description is a high school diploma required? The same goes for the Supreme Court, and they don't need a degree in law. If the conditions arose, we could have a president more incompatent than Bush, if thats possible of course.

That's San Diego. San Jose is like, a few miles south of San Francisco

Too many Sans to keep track of. SF is a few miles west of me. So we're damn close.

You really do ask for too much. ;)

Actually, it's not even a question...

Too many Sans to keep track of. SF is a few miles west of me. So we're damn close.

Yes... Verily... Are you going to the Fall State convention for JSA?

Isn't it a bit scary that no where in the Presidential job description is a high school diploma required? The same goes for the Supreme Court, and they don't need a degree in law. If the conditions arose, we could have a president more incompatent than Bush, if thats possible of course.
Well, assuming that such a person could survive the inevitable debate question: 'why do you think that you should be president, despite the fact that you never graduated from high school?' I would maintain that no capable opposition would allow that person to get elected, and that if such a person did, it would have to be through the fault of the opposition to craft any kind of political campaign.

That, or the non-high school graduate is good enough at being a politician that he can get elected without having graduated from high-school, in which case he deserves to get the job.

Whether or not you believe that a person's ability to express their ideas eloquently is correlated with their ability to lead a nation, I think this much is true:

A vast number of jobs in America that require leadership, and especially those that have a public speaking component, usually have as a requirement something to the effect of "must have excellent communication skills" etc.

So, no, I don't doubt that there have been many great leaders that found it difficult to string together several cogent thoughts without the help of a teleprompter. However, I don't think it's unreasonable that we absolutely expect that the PRESIDENT should have excellent communication skills. And let's be realistic, it's widely accepted that Bush just falls short in that area. Is it embarrasing for a lot of Americans? Absolutely. Does it mean he can't govern well? Not necessarily. But then, there are all sorts of other reasons to question that.

Are an individual's verbal communication skills a reasonable indice of their ability to lead, govern, and act as a diplomat? Maybe not, but I also think that it's a reasonable thing for us to demand of the leader of our nation. So who can blame the OP for his frustration?

Yes... Verily... Are you going to the Fall State convention for JSA?

Indeed. I will hope to see you there. I'll like, have a sign on my chest saying "Generalite". You should see me easily enough.

Bush today:


:headbang:

It's really getting ridiculous.

Haha, your president's a retard.

I thought Stockton was in Sweden..

Stockholm........

Indeed. I will hope to see you there. I'll like, have a sign on my chest saying "Generalite". You should see me easily enough.

Excellent.... I don't know what I'll be wearing though. Maybe pants.

Now I must ask you... are you straight..?

So, people with speech problems shouldn't consider running for President?

If he were any good at anything else then your comment would have some merit. He's terrible at everything he does, and this is just emblematic of that.

Excellent.... I don't know what I'll be wearing though. Maybe pants.

Now I must ask you... are you straight..?

Well as far as I can tell it's going to be a formal ceremony.

Actually, I'm asexual. At least, I consider myself to be. Everyone else on here just calls it "sexual repression". Friggin' Freudians...

Well, assuming that such a person could survive the inevitable debate question: 'why do you think that you should be president, despite the fact that you never graduated from high school?' I would maintain that no capable opposition would allow that person to get elected, and that if such a person did, it would have to be through the fault of the opposition to craft any kind of political campaign.

That, or the non-high school graduate is good enough at being a politician that he can get elected without having graduated from high-school, in which case he deserves to get the job.

Yeah. Just like how if you can rob a bank and get all the way home with the money they let you go. Right?

Well as far as I can tell it's going to be a formal ceremony.

Actually, I'm asexual. At least, I consider myself to be. Everyone else on here just calls it "sexual repression". Friggin' Freudians...

You mean you're not attracted at ALL to men or women?

Not funny....

No not funny some one should seriously do it.

Isn't it a bit scary that no where in the Presidential job description is a high school diploma required? The same goes for the Supreme Court, and they don't need a degree in law. If the conditions arose, we could have a president more incompatent than Bush, if thats possible of course.

We could elect a real monkey. A real monkey i mean not just a man who looks acts and governs like an evil sadistic shifty eyed monkey.

You mean you're not attracted at ALL to men or women?

Nothing at all. Not even inanimate objects.

Nothing at all. Not even inanimate objects.

You just have yet to meet the right light socket. ;)

Nothing at all. Not even inanimate objects.

Not even romantically?

Not even romantically?

Emotionally, yes. Physically, no.

Emotionally, yes. Physically, no.

Then there may be some hope for me...

Then there may be some hope for me...

Wait, what's your gender and sexuality?

Interestingly enough. People I know who have heard Bush give speeches in Spanish say he is more articulate, eloquent and apparently gets his point across better than when he is speaking in English.

What does that tell you about him?

How many threads do we really need for bashing Bush? I don't like his polices either, but isn't this getting a bit ridiculous?

Wait, what's your gender and sexuality?

I'm male, and I'm bi...

Well as far as I can tell it's going to be a formal ceremony.

Actually, I'm asexual. At least, I consider myself to be. Everyone else on here just calls it "sexual repression". Friggin' Freudians...

Friggin' Freudians are far preferable to Celibate Freudians!

{just my little contribution to having this thread moved to Chat}

Honestly? I don't care, and this is why.

I firmly believe that whatever Bush's wrongs, errors or misjudgments, his manner of speech is not relevant.

What is his job? And what are the basic necessary skills required to perform the tasks that having this job entails?

His job - as I am sure you know, is Head of State. This is a representative position, where he is tasked with representing in public speeches and formal ceremonies, the United States of America.

Do you still hold that his manner of speech is irrelevant? If so, you fail to understand the nature of the work of a head of state.

So, people with speech problems shouldn't consider running for President?

No more so than the blind should consider being airline pilots. There are tasks which some disabilities make it impossible for the bearer of that disability to perform. Having speech problems makes it impossible for you to perform the task of being head of state. No discrimination, just a simple fact.

Add to the fact that Bush is not just a Head of State, he is also a politician (notall heads of state are politicians per se) then his inability to speak coherently makes me wonder how he ever succeeded in politics. After all, what is it that politicians do? They speak, they cajole, they persuade etc. A politician with a speech defect is like a wheel less car - a waste of space and non functional.

Do people read my posts, or do they just ignore them when said posts don't fit into their self-congratulatory Bush bashing theme. Seriously, there have been politicians, many successful, who govern on the basis of intelligence and political manouevering rather than spectacular success at the podium. Churchill was one, although he had his oratory moments. Bush has had his. For example, We Will Not Tire is, overall, a pretty good speech. Yeah, he might have stumbled over a word here and there, but Clinton did that too. Clinton just had a more forceful personality on-camera.

Bush is, whatever you think of his policies, much more like his father than he was like Clinton. He does his work off-camera. While George H.W. Bush might have a better reputation, their styles are pretty similar.

To say that we must be led by the one who can speak the best isn't a particularly great yardstick. Not to drag out an old and tired comparison (well, okay. Yes to drag out an old and tired comparison) Hitler was an excellent speaker. However, he tended towards the 'wholesale genocide' thing. Obviously, best speaker isn't the best way to measure who should lead.

New Domici: No. You don't get what I'm saying, or rather you're blowing it out of proportion. I maintain that anyone clever enough to convince the public to vote for him without having a high-school diploma clearly has political aptitude in spades. If he wins in that case, bloody well let him lead. He'd have more advisors than he could count to keep him from screwing up too badly on the finer points of law (provided that he didn't pull a Bush and fill his cabinet with the most syncophantic idiots he can find), and a Supreme Court to strike anything particularly objectionable down.

It's a central part of our democracy that the man (or, concievably, woman. I use the male gender for grammatical issues) who gets the votes becomes the president. If he meets the qualifications, he ought to be given his chance.

Pardon me if I make any typos or grammatical errors, I'm sick and it's late at night.

I see a lot of apologists are saying how Bush is being criticized for "not being the best public speaker." Euphemism much? Or better yet, how he has some sort of "disability" or "impediment," hence anyone daring to criticize his speech is just being a liberal nazi bigot who hates cripples.

Blah. If he wasn't such a shitty president, the fact that he talks like a moron would be overlookable. But he is, so it isn't.

It's a central part of our democracy that the man (or, concievably, woman. I use the male gender for grammatical issues) who gets the votes becomes the president. If he meets the qualifications, he ought to be given his chance.


That is why you have an electoral college I suppose.

You have not addressed the point of the nature of the work that Bush is charged with doing and how this is incompatible with Bush's inability to make sense in English. Governing is not what Bush is employed to do. (You have a whole government to do that.)

Because the one necessarily follows the other. Of course.

His being a shitty president is not because he is a poor speaker, it is because of policies that have caused more problems than solutions. I'm happy to debate facts, issues and the like-- hell, you and I might even agree. But I think that it's irrelevant and, as I've stated before, vindictive to point and laugh every time he makes a verbal gaffe. Because, God forbid, a political leader not be a skilled speaker. Because nobody else can get things done.

Because the one necessarily follows the other. Of course.

His being a shitty president is not because he is a poor speaker, it is because of policies that have caused more problems than solutions. I'm happy to debate facts, issues and the like-- hell, you and I might even agree. But I think that it's irrelevant and, as I've stated before, vindictive to point and laugh every time he makes a verbal gaffe. Because, God forbid, a political leader not be a skilled speaker. Because nobody else can get things done.

If he wasn't President, he wouldn't be so cruelly victimized for his occasional gaffes. He is, he wanted the job, he got it, that includes being a media celebrity.

If you're trying to get me to feel sorry for the most powerful man in the world and shame me into not having a sense of humour about the few things about his presidency that are comical, you may as well ask people to stop laughing entirely.

What's next, don't laugh at Tom Cruise when he jumps on a couch? I mean obviously, his couch-jumping has little to do with how good an actor he is.

You have not addressed the point of the nature of the work that Bush is charged with doing and how this is incompatible with Bush's inability to make sense in English. Governing is not what Bush is employed to do. (You have a whole government to do that.)
Bush is a member of the executive branch, the section of government most responsible for governance in and of itself. Indeed, he is the visible and (presumably) practical head of said branch. If he isn't charged with the governance of the nation, I don't know who is.

The Legislature is charged with representing the people in the main, and creating new laws. That the legislature mostly bickers and tries to screw pages does not, after all, invalidate its true function, which is to represent the people. Yes, it does make laws. But the president is required to sign off on said laws, because it is his responsibility to govern justly, while congressmen are just supposed to advocate for their respective states/districts and eventually come to a Hegelian synthesis of sorts.


If he wasn't President, he wouldn't be so cruelly victimized for his occasional gaffes. He is, he wanted the job, he got it, that includes being a media celebrity.

If you're trying to get me to feel sorry for the most powerful man in the world and shame me into not having a sense of humour about the few things about his presidency that are comical, you may as well ask people to stop laughing entirely.

What's next, don't laugh at Tom Cruise when he jumps on a couch? I mean obviously, his couch-jumping has little to do with how good an actor he is.
It might be fun, but in what way does this support its being relevant to anything at all? That was my original question, remains my main point and so far has gone unadequately answered.

I'm not claiming that you can't laugh at the president (or if I did, it was more due to lack of sleep and having a nasty cold than it was to true belief). Laugh at him all you bloody well want. But using it (as some have tried to) to 'prove' why Bush is unfit to govern is rather silly.

It might be fun, but in what way does this support its being relevant to anything at all? That was my original question, remains my main point and so far has gone unadequately answered.

I guess it's relevant because unlike, say, being a plumber, being a President DOES involve public speaking. And, also unlike a plumber, being a President means everyone - for example, the entire world - scrutinizes your public performance as well as what the results of your administration.

(And it's not really about public speaking. I'm a bad public speaker, I get shy and nervous. But I don't think that's Bush's problem. He does well enough with a script, unlike me. It's when he's just speaking his mind, say to a reporter or a small group - that seems to be the source of the problem.)

Like it or not, people do judge based on appearances, so when in policy and speech the President comes off as a bumbling moron, what does that say about the people who elected him?

I'm not claiming that you can't laugh at the president (or if I did, it was more due to lack of sleep and having a nasty cold than it was to true belief). Laugh at him all you bloody well want. But using it (as some have tried to) to 'prove' why Bush is unfit to govern is rather silly.

Oh, it's not proof. Like I said, if he was actually a good president, I could overlook it. (Though of course there is never going to be a president whose flaws everybody will overlook. Comes with the job.) It's not even that funny anymore - in large part because of the damaging effect it has on America's reputation - but it's more or less the straw that broke that camel's back.

Well, to follow the plumber analogy. You seem to be saying that Bush's lack of speaking skill is similar to a plumber lacking the ability to, say, clear a drain-- one of his major functions. And that's true, but perhaps this plumber-- or in this case, a hypothetical president-- is a septic system specialist, with skill with shower heads and laying pipe. He can't clear a drain to save his life, but he can deal with septic issues, do... whatever plumbers do for showers and he can build the water-transportation system throughout your home. I'd still hire the guy for most jobs.

Now, we both agree. Bush has other issues which make his presidency less than satisfactory (I have a knack for understatement). However, you and I disagree on the point that his being a poor off-book speaker (off book meaning without a script) being a major issue when compared to other things. In this case, it's like a plumber who forgot his caulk, but in addition, has never seen a pipe before. I would suggest that while not having caulk is not an insurmountable issue, not having plumbing experience will rather ruin ones' chances in the plumbing business.

I really have to sleep-- I feel like crap. Uh, have a nice night?

Well, to follow the plumber analogy. You seem to be saying that Bush's lack of speaking skill is similar to a plumber lacking the ability to, say, clear a drain-- one of his major functions. And that's true, but perhaps this plumber-- or in this case, a hypothetical president-- is a septic system specialist, with skill with shower heads and laying pipe. He can't clear a drain to save his life, but he can deal with septic issues, do... whatever plumbers do for showers and he can build the water-transportation system throughout your home. I'd still hire the guy for most jobs.

Now, we both agree. Bush has other issues which make his presidency less than satisfactory (I have a knack for understatement). However, you and I disagree on the point that his being a poor off-book speaker (off book meaning without a script) being a major issue when compared to other things.

It's not, when compared to things like occupying Iraq. But I try to take a holistic view.

In this case, it's like a plumber who forgot his caulk, but in addition, has never seen a pipe before. I would suggest that while not having caulk is not an insurmountable issue, not having plumbing experience will rather ruin ones' chances in the plumbing business.

I really have to sleep-- I feel like crap. Uh, have a nice night?

Hmm, yes. Okay, gnight!

Yeah, he was in Stockton early today. I would've skipped school to allow him to meet my friend Mr. Colt, but I decided against it.

Also: "OMFG SECURITY!!!11!!!ONE!!! RUN AWAY!!!!111!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!" :p

Not funny....

I laughed. :p

Well, to follow the plumber analogy. You seem to be saying that Bush's lack of speaking skill is similar to a plumber lacking the ability to, say, clear a drain-- one of his major functions. And that's true, but perhaps this plumber-- or in this case, a hypothetical president-- is a septic system specialist, with skill with shower heads and laying pipe. He can't clear a drain to save his life, but he can deal with septic issues, do... whatever plumbers do for showers and he can build the water-transportation system throughout your home. I'd still hire the guy for most jobs.

Now, we both agree. Bush has other issues which make his presidency less than satisfactory (I have a knack for understatement). However, you and I disagree on the point that his being a poor off-book speaker (off book meaning without a script) being a major issue when compared to other things. In this case, it's like a plumber who forgot his caulk, but in addition, has never seen a pipe before. I would suggest that while not having caulk is not an insurmountable issue, not having plumbing experience will rather ruin ones' chances in the plumbing business.

I really have to sleep-- I feel like crap. Uh, have a nice night?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm thoroughly convinced by G-man's argument here. Sure, I enjoy laughing at the slip-ups--"Put food on your family!"--but I'd hardly call him a poor leader because of it. I prefer sticking to the real reasons he's a poor leader: his complete inability to achieve anything of real significant value, and his amazing ability to screw up everything he touches.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm thoroughly convinced by G-man's argument here. Sure, I enjoy laughing at the slip-ups--"Put food on your family!"--but I'd hardly call him a poor leader because of it. I prefer sticking to the real reasons he's a poor leader: his complete inability to achieve anything of real significant value, and his amazing ability to screw up everything he touches.

I, on the other hand, am not convinced. I am not denying that there are plenty of reasons beyond his linguistic limitations as to why he is a bad leader, but these do not mean that these limitations by themselves, if they were all there was against him, would not be enough to make him a bad leader.

The G-man (as you conveniently call him given the difficulty in remembering his name) seems to think that the primary function of the Head of State is that of governance. This is simply wrong. The primary function of a Head of State is to represent that state internationally. That in the USA this function has had other executive functions added to it does not remove this primary function. Any Head of State that is incapable of expressing themselves clearly and fluently, in their primary language, is incompetent as a Head of State.

The plumber analogy is a good one in that it indicates clearly why Bush is not (because of his linguistic limitations) competent to be the chief plumber. If we regard the executive of the USA as a company of plumbers, then the chief executive has to be capable of clearing drains, and not just competent to deal with the septic tankis. If his ability is limited in this sense, then his position should not be that of chief plumber, but that of assistant plumber responsible for septic tanks.

Let's not strawman, shall we? The ability to speak, or one's social charisma, does not equate with competence. Let us examine a few other leaders for this:I'm so sick of people throwing around the "strawman" fallacy here - especially since it's apparent most who do have no idea what a strawman is. A strawman logical fallacy is an attempt to attack an opposing argument by changing the argument of the opponent to something it's not, attacking that argument and then, by proxy, claiming that you have attacked the opponents original argument. You set up a strawman, knock down the strawman and claim you have knocked down the real man.

My argument since the first post has been that Bush's inability with language speaks to his intelligence level and his ability to communicate and, thus, his ability to govern our country effectively. That's exactly what I said in the post you quoted from me. Since I wasn't attcking anyone else's argument I could not have been commiting a strawman fallacy because, by definition, I have to be attacking an argument in order to commit one. Here's a good example of a strawman argument:

The First Duke of Wellington, nee Arthur Wellesly, was known as a large-nosed, painfully formal and cold sort of man during his service in India. He tended to pontificate, he was somewhat boring and he would go into a cold rage that would last for days when slighted. Of course, he was one of Britain's finest generals. He suffered not one defeat, despite facing several of France's Marshalls and Napoleon, still recognized today as a brilliant leader of men.In this very obvious strawman the debator looks at my point which is, again:

bad at speaking, no real vocabulary, lots of gafs -----> not intelligent ------> not effective at governing.

In order to attack that argument the debator should attack the links in the argument by coming up with examples of people who were not good at speaking, have no real vocabulary and made lots of gafs who were, nonetheless, intelligent or at least effective at governing if they were stupid. What the debator does here is use this argument.

rude, cold overly formal, temper -----> effective military commander, therfore-----> bad at speaking, no real vocabulary, lots of gafs ----///----> not ntelligent ----////----> not effective at governing.

That is a classice strawman argument. Just because a general who was cold, had a temper and was overly formal can be an effective military commander does not mean a man who sounds stupid isn't stupid and therefore is a bad president of the US.

I'll give you an example of another strawman:

Winston Churchill was abrasive, insulting and rude. He tended towards base insult and petty infighting during the First World War, eventually driving out Jackie Fisher from the post of First Sea Lord. He was sarcastic, short and round. Yet he managed to lead the British people through one of their most difficult periods, and is still one of their national heroes beside such as Raleigh or Nelson.

Again another strawman here. In this case the poster does use an actual statesman so the end of the logic chain does coincide. The problem is that the begining is way off the mark Not only was Winston Chuchill a great statesman, he was extremely elloquent and fluid with the English language He wasn't just a good speaker, he was among the best in politics ever and has been noted as such. The fact that he was rude does not equate to the fact that Bush sounds stupid. In fact, probably the reason his sarcasm was so effective is because he was so adept at the English Language. I hope now you better understand what a strawman argument is.

I don't claim that Bush is in any way the statesman that Churchill was,Jesus, I hope not. That would be like comparing Corky to Marlon Brando

fact is, he's not particularly adept.
Not particularily adept? He stinks on ice. He sucks ass. He's as bad at it as anyone I can think of.

But my point is that social awkwardness is a poor method of determining ability to lead. I also think that the idea that one must be charming, well combed and never end a sentance with a preposition if one is to run for President is a bad one. As Churchill's example suggests, one can alienate plenty of people, insult others and make gaffes left and right, and still emerge as a skillful and influential leader.Another strawman argument. First, Winston was not socially ackward, he was a bit of an asshole. Second, I never claimed that Bush was socially ackward - in fact he is decidedly not socially ackward. By all accounts he is extremely friendly and easy to get along with. He is often called "folksy." What I said was that when I hear him speak or read teh things that he says he sounds like he has a third rate command of the English language and that this speaks to the level of intelligence he has and, therefore, his ability as a politician and his ability to govern the US effectively.

Again: Let's stick to the facts without insulting Bush for his grammar.No, let's stick to the facts and analyze whether bad grammer and language skills can impact a person's ability to lead effectively.

The facts speak well enough without being particularly spiteful.Well, we agree on at least one thing.

EDIT: Also, one can be poorly versed in using the English language without having a learning disability or a low IQ, it's called social awkwardness. While it's all well and good to say that you don't want stupid people for president; no awkward people? No thinkers, rather than flashy demagogues?

Again, socially ackward ---///---> bad at English. Socially ackward --------> not able to relate to people in normal, usual, socially acceptable ways. I hope this clears up my argument for you and that you now understand what a strawman argument is.

Bumped for a reply from Gurguvungunit... :confused:

Bumped again. I'd like to hear a little more on the subject.

Honestly? I don't care, and this is why.

I firmly believe that whatever Bush's wrongs, errors or misjudgments, his manner of speech is not relevant. For Christ's sake, he simply dropped a 'for their' from his sentance. It's not as though he said 'we should shoot children'. If we've become so vindictive as to criticise a man for mis-speaking in a non-relevant way, I don't think that the discussion has merit.

I thinks its because they are in conjunction with the war of terror, the whole Iraq thing and everything else that they have become symptomatic of the mayonnaise at the center of the administration,