what a big shrug that was. It sounded like pretty much every speech I’ve ever heard him give, including the content.
I don’t know how I feel about his choice to do it in front of a captive, obediently cheering audience. On the one hand, maybe he felt it oughta be, since he “won” and everything, that’s how it is usually done and he got gypped outta that. But on the other…wasn’t it rather cynically manipulative?
We all know I’m incapable of objectivity on this, so someone help me out here…Spiritus? How about you, DS, the only one here who seemed to see “smarmy” in Gore, what did you see in Dub?
I wasn’t squirming with ire and rage (too spent after weeping for Gore) I was just…“So what else is on TV?”
Yeah, it didn’t seem all that great. It didn’t blow me away, I guess the fact that he didn’t just break into gibberish blew me away, but that doesn’t really count. I guess his handlers couldn’t come up with anything great.
I’m interested to see what the athiests think about him asking for prayers for everyone he could think of, seemed kind of stupid to me. Guess he has to reassure the Christian Coalition that he knows who got him there.
Oh Scylla, sorry I’m not talking about Gore right now am I? I didn’t get to see Gore’s entire speech and I haven’t commented on it, or I would have said something about that too. You can go fuck yourself as far as I’m concerned. I was talking about Bush’s acceptance speech, shit.
I’d suggest, while deliberately choosing not to take offense, that if you made a mistake and missed Al Gore’s speech and religious references, that you simply and graciously admit it, rather than getting your testicles in a bunch.
What language! Someone poked a sore nerve. It has been rare to hear either candidate (and in the case of the Democrats, the VP candidate as well) get in front of a crowd and fail to mention God and faith.
Anyway, Bush was in the position to give a very different type of sppech than Gore, so it is no surprise it didn’t have the same tone. Reaching out to the opposition party to talk about working together is certainly better than just rattling off a bunch of Republican stuff.
Personally, I’m one of those who isn’t so all fired up for governence from the political center. But, that seems to be the order of the day. Given that, I think it was a fine speech.
I’ve already commended Gore in another thread for his speech.
No, I didn’t make a mistake. Like I said, I didn’t comment on Gore’s speech because I saw the very end of it, and even then I wasn’t able to give my full attention, therefore, I did not comment on it. Again, like I said, if I’d seen Gore’s speech, I would have said the same thing. Go find the post where I commented on Gore’s speech, you’re going to have a tough time, because I didn’t make one! This is a thread about Bush’s speech, and that was the one I was commenting on.
“Fuck you,” is not a debatable argument, and generally considered inappropriate in a discussion. Though It’s not for me to say, it’s generally an ill-considered remark in this forum.
In faulting Bush’s speech without reference to Gore who did the same thing a few minutes earlier, you are begging the question as to whether you are faulting Bush simply becuase he’s Bush, or whether you have a genuine concern over this convention.
Your ignorance of Gore’s speech in no way mitigates your oversight. If anything, it makes your position more tenuous.
Your denial that you are only referring to Bush is also without merit, as the contrasting and comparison of the two speeches is a legitimate topic.
Now, I really am done with you. Goodnight.
Actually, he did it in the Texas House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Democrats. Unity and bipartisanship and cooperation, and all that.
Yeah, I think we’ve noticed.
Your sig is a sure way to make you look like a sour hate-filled loser, and will turn far more people off than influence them to agree with you. This is fine with me, but I fail to see why it would be fine with you.
Dignan said:
As an agnostic, it didn’t thrill me…but it doesn’t thrill me when Democrats do it either. I’ve learned to put up with such things from both sides. And, no, it has nothing to do with the Christian Coalition–in case you’re 13 years old and have never noticed before, they allmanage to drag religious references in at some point. The country is predominately Christian, you know. (And what’s your reaction when Jesse Jackson brings up religion–is heplaying to the Christian Coalition?)
Maybe you are13 years old–that’s about the level of debate I expect from eighth-graders.*
(*I apologize to many 13-year-olds–I realize a lot of them can actually convey opinions politely and rationally.)
Much as I don’t like Clinton, the man can give a speech. If we can get some decent leadership and heal the wounds that exist in our government, and only have to sacrifice great public speaking, then what the hell, it works for me.
He didn’t mumble, he looked decent, he was pretty much average. His location was appropriate for his speech. The tone was fine. I was reminded of the split screen Clinton/Lazio fiasco, you just can’t expect the winner to be sad.
It just doesn’t work that way.
The big plus, and hopefully a sign of things to come, was Bush having a democrat introduce him.
OK, then I’m sorry to the moderators for using that in this forum.
No, I was simplying asking what atheists thought about Bush’s comments. Once again, like I said, if I’d seen all of Gore’s speech I would have said the same thing. Just to prove it to you.
WHAT DID ATHEISTS THINK OF RELIGIOUS COMMENTS MADE TONIGHT BY BOTH GORE AND BUSH?
Happy?
No, it doesn’t, because I was not commenting on Gore’s speech. If I had commented on Gore’s speech after not having seen it, then I you could make that argument.
This is not “without merit.” I was not comparing the two speeches. I didn’t make any reference to Gore’s speech in my first post. This thread is clearly for people to voice their opinions on Bush’s speech. If the thread topic was “Now, as for how Dubya’s speech stacked up to Gore’s” then I would not have posted, becuase I DID NOT SEE GORE’S SPEECH, SO I HAVE NOT, AND WILL NOT COMMENT ON IT! And, no, you don’t have to apologize for being wrong.
That’s Jesse’s decision if he wants to do that. Jesse is not occupying a public office that represents me, so if he wants to make refrences to religion, that’s his decision. It is different, IMO, when someone in a public office does it. I was simply asking for a reaction from the atheists (and agnostics). I myself am a Deist, not that it matters.
Yeah, that’s real original, attack someone’s age. I did vote in this election, so I’m not 13 (not that that matters either). I don’t think that age really matters in a discussion like this.
About the speech: Ah, I give it a B. B minus, maybe. It was fine. He didn’t gibber or drool or anything. He seemed gracious and decent. It was a bit long, though.
Dignan:
Immaturity does, and you appear to have that in heaps. I was astonished at how you could get so rude and hostile, so quickly, over something rather minor. Get over yourself, grow up, and don’t go off half-cocked. Some of us can go years (and thousands of posts) without being “warned” by a moderator. If you can’t manage it in the short time you’ve been here, that’s not a good sign. I’m confident you are capable of learning from this experience, though.
I wish there were official “warning” stats. I bet we would see this huge surge as the election neared, with a record breaking pace all through the last 5 weeks. I think it would be cool to see it taper off as the election fades.
