OT For Louie From Bob Kerrey

On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:04:33 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:33:39 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

But I have heard _and_ seen Dubya's speeches and what I may or may
not think of FDR or Teddy has no bearing on my opinion of Dubya.

And I didn't say that it did. I simply asked what seems to be a
perfectly reasonable question.

I don't have strong opinions about either of them. Exactly what is
your point here, Richard?

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

TC,
R

wrote:

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

While with George W. Bush, we have hundreds of hours of video and sound,
so we can see for ourselves what an inarticulate, uninformed,
mendacious, mean spirited SOB he is.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
wrote:

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

While with George W. Bush, we have hundreds of hours of video and sound,
so we can see for ourselves what an inarticulate, uninformed,
mendacious, mean spirited SOB he is.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Morons are hard to hide. It doen't matter if their speaking from the
presidential rostrum or trying to defend him on a ff newsgroup.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:49:11 GMT, rw
wrote:

While with George W. Bush, we have hundreds of hours of video and sound,
so we can see for ourselves what an inarticulate, uninformed,
mendacious, mean spirited SOB he is.

"We" do? Is this "we" you and the Roosevelts, you and your horse, or
you and Al Gore? In any case, for someone you think so little of,
that's quite a collection to amass. Come on now, fess up - every couple
of weeks, you get all likkered up, put a Bill Clinton mask, dress your
horse up like John Kerry, load up the Betamax, and spend a coupla-three
days screaming irrationally at your videos of Bush, doncha?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:04:33 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:33:39 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

But I have heard _and_ seen Dubya's speeches and what I may or may
not think of FDR or Teddy has no bearing on my opinion of Dubya.

And I didn't say that it did. I simply asked what seems to be a
perfectly reasonable question.

I don't have strong opinions about either of them. Exactly what is
your point here, Richard?

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

Well.....gosh......all of that is (not surprisingly) as uninteresting as it
is vapid. So, let's run with it.

Leaving aside the fact that no thinking person ever mistook either of the
Roosevelts for an idiot and that none would ever mistake the current Sock
Puppet in Chief for anything else, or that, left to his own devices, he
would have no more to say than you do and would.....perhaps.....say it even
less intelligibly (if, doubtless, more economically), one need only look at
the vast panoply of morally bankrupt and intellectually vacant actions taken
in his name to get a sense of the richness of his vein of stupidity and
venality.

You see the difference?

Wolfgang
from the rhetorical questions desk.

"Tom Littleton" wrote in news:Rmu6g.3577$g01.1695
@trnddc01:

corrected......I


nah-- you did fine in the first place. I was trying to cut off an
"arbitrary language" argument before it happened.

Back in the day, I used to judge Parliamentary Debate (remind me to tell
you some amusing stories along those lines). Regardless of who is right
and who is wrong (which has very little to do with Parliamentary Debate
rules, for which there is no such thing as a "Point of Information"), I can
tell you who won this debate.

The biggest screw up, actually, is that there was this blatantly obvious
lapse in preparation and command and control, yet it would be considered
"partisan" to hold a meaningful investigation into why. I've always
thought that Bush's biggest lie was "I'm a uniter, not a divider", and the
games he's played over the years along these lines have ground
accountability to a complete halt.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I don't have strong opinions about either of them. Exactly what is
your point here, Richard?

What he's essentially getting at is this: "What are you going to
believe? Me, or your own eyes and ears?"

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:04:33 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

I don't have strong opinions about either of them. Exactly what is
your point here, Richard?

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

That's all well and good, but hardly relevant to Bush. I've seen
him speak and I'm not getting my impression of him from The (Evil Libral
Godless) Media (Elite) (tm).

I have watched his televised speeches and press conferences that is
when the man should be at his best. But he is a poor speaker who
struggles whenever he has to go beyond his nice comfortable little
soundbites.

It's obvious that your opinion is different, so now I'll ask you: On
what do you base your feeling that he is intelligent?


Chuck Vance

On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:43:10 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:04:33 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

I don't have strong opinions about either of them. Exactly what is
your point here, Richard?

Well, that perceptions are often strongly influenced in a number of
ways, and often, the perception is not accurate. TR, who was fairly
intelligent, was thought by many to have a speech impediment because he
often spoke in such "bursts" that he could be difficult to understand.
Plus he often, as I understand it, sorta, well, tripped over his
phrases. Not quite in the same was Bush does, but if all one heard were
a few snippets, they could get a number of impressions, not all
positive. But since there wasn't the audio-video part of media there is
today, and there is relatively little (compared with Presidents from,
oh, say, Kennedy onward) sound film footage of him, that was something
he never really had to deal with as a public figure.

FDR, on the other hand, had lots of sound recording but because of his
paralysis, there is very little motion footage of him. He wasn't
particularly comfortable in crowds, especially large, "public" ones
(understandable, given his situation, amongst other reasons), but he
gave the impression that he was at ease with any and all. But it was a
"trick" in that many people think they "saw" lots of him when in fact,
they "heard" lots and saw a lot of still pictures. Again, the
perception of him was "skewed" by the image people were given, helped by
a cooperative press.

That's all well and good, but hardly relevant to Bush. I've seen
him speak and I'm not getting my impression of him from The (Evil Libral
Godless) Media (Elite) (tm).

It's relevant to all public figures, and it has nothing to do with the
media being "evil," just biased. And biased as much toward what they
feel is a good sound bite as much as any liberal bias. Look at how many
times certain Clintonisms got played - "I did not have sexual
relations," "vast right-wing conspiracy," "what the meaning of 'is,'
is," sure all were interesting and important in relative context, but
OK, fine, we heard them the first 87 times they played them.

I have watched his televised speeches and press conferences that is
when the man should be at his best. But he is a poor speaker who
struggles whenever he has to go beyond his nice comfortable little
soundbites.

Well, perhaps you're like, er, some and have hundreds of hours of video
that you regularly watch, but I'd suspect that you're like most people,
even interested, involved people (although not actually _in_ politics
and/or watching as part of your job) and what you've seen is mostly
snippets and "soundbites" (esp. since you used that very word) with
_maybe_ a few "beginning-to-end" events tossed in at random.

It's obvious that your opinion is different, so now I'll ask you: On
what do you base your feeling that he is intelligent?

Well, first, it seems you are attempting to "spin" what I've said. What
I've said is that, IMO, he is of slightly above-average intelligence.
And not to get into the "how tall is Wolfgang" thing, but IMO, that does
not convey what saying "he is intelligent" does because being of
"average intelligence" is, well, "average." And I base it upon years
(remember, he didn't spring forth with a security detail in 1998-99) of
personal observation, anecdotal information from others, actually
seeing, probably more than I wanted, a lot of public interaction, and
having some experience with how the media works. And by "works," I
simply mean the mechanics of it - for example, the insert network here
Evening News simply doesn't have time for more than a sound bite or two,
regardless of who is US President. Combine that with knowing that
public speaking and raw intelligence don't go hand-in-hand, and thus,
I've formed my opinion.

Here is, at least for me, a good example of what the camera can do: take
Bob Schieffer and Dan Rather. IMO, Schieffer beats Rather in all
categories, skill as a journalist, human intelligence as opposed to
"animal cunning," objectivity where appropriate, etc., except one:
on-camera "juice." And I'd offer that the general public is much more
aware of Rather, even now, and that the predominant view would be of him
as "a major journalist," when in reality, he is little more than a
arrogant, disgraced partisan hack.

TC,
R

wrote:

On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:43:10 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

That's all well and good, but hardly relevant to Bush. I've seen
him speak and I'm not getting my impression of him from The (Evil Libral
Godless) Media (Elite) (tm).

It's relevant to all public figures,

It's not relevant to what I'm talking about, no matter hoow much you
might like it to be. What I'm talking about are instances where I've
seen the man speak live on camera. No media regurgitation, just him
speaking.

I have watched his televised speeches and press conferences that is
when the man should be at his best. But he is a poor speaker who
struggles whenever he has to go beyond his nice comfortable little
soundbites.

Well, perhaps you're like, er, some and have hundreds of hours of video
that you regularly watch, but I'd suspect that you're like most people,
even interested, involved people (although not actually _in_ politics
and/or watching as part of your job) and what you've seen is mostly
snippets and "soundbites" (esp. since you used that very word) with
_maybe_ a few "beginning-to-end" events tossed in at random.

Actually, I'm referring to the beginning-to-end events. I routinely
watch *any* president's news-conferences and speeches from beginning to
end if they are televised, and I am at home at the time. Call me funny,
but I think it's important.

It's obvious that your opinion is different, so now I'll ask you: On
what do you base your feeling that he is intelligent?

Well, first, it seems you are attempting to "spin" what I've said. What
I've said is that, IMO, he is of slightly above-average intelligence.
And not to get into the "how tall is Wolfgang" thing, but IMO, that does
not convey what saying "he is intelligent" does because being of
"average intelligence" is, well, "average." And I base it upon years
(remember, he didn't spring forth with a security detail in 1998-99) of
personal observation, anecdotal information from others, actually
seeing, probably more than I wanted, a lot of public interaction, and
having some experience with how the media works. And by "works," I
simply mean the mechanics of it - for example, the insert network here
Evening News simply doesn't have time for more than a sound bite or two,
regardless of who is US President. Combine that with knowing that
public speaking and raw intelligence don't go hand-in-hand, and thus,
I've formed my opinion.

Fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[snip of Schieffer vs. Rather]

Lord you do go on about the media, don't you? :-)


Chuck Vance