No, you’re setting up a false dichotomy. Public speaking is not the only measure of intelligence, it is merely one indicator used to judge intelligence (rightly or wrongly). They are saying that poor public speaking is a reflection of the low intelligence of Quayle and Bush. That says nothing about Reagan. On Reagan, they might say, “He’s a good public speaker, but his deficit spending and ‘trickle-down effect’ are indicators he’s a flaming boob.”
All of which is independent of whether the opinion about particular Presidents is based up on political partisanship.
And I still say that W. is really Quayle in disguise. Come on. A fumble-mouthed white guy conservative Republican with a reputation for being not too bright. Even the name - it’s like Quayle knew he couldn’t win under his own name, so he just used the name of the President from when he was VP - George Bush!
If the Soviets were the Evil Empire, who was the Empire of Good?
I fail to see the U.S. under Reagan fitting that role. Ask Sout Americans who suffered just because the U.S. fought what they considered to be Communism with all means, no matter how much sense that actually made.
I am fully aware that Communism had a lot of victims (it wasn’t that far to the iron curtain from where I live, and until 89 the news quite frequently told of refugees being shot by border guards). But to fall back to a manichaic world picture helps nobody, and is a weak attempt to justify the crimes one’s own side has committed.
So please, spare us with “Empire of Evil” remarks and leave them to theological discussions.
Our solution in Latin America was to train goon squads at the SOA to go out and shoot and torture peasants. To turn a blind eye to church figures being brutally murdered. To support some of the worst dictators this side of the Iron Curtain.
No, WE made communism in Latin America popular, because the alternative was just as bad. And don’t forget, some of the communists in Latin America, such as Allende, were much much better than their alternatives-Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza, etc etc.
Pinochet killed around 20,000 people. Communists killed 100,000,000 of their own citizens. Mathematically, that makes communism five thousand times as evil as Pinochet!
Furthermore, the killings in Chile took place during what was essentially a civil war. Communists were killing Pinochet supporters as well.
**Guinastasia ** appears more concerned about the death of 20,000 than about the death of 100,000,000.
Ahem - people, if you want to discuss communism vs. capitalism and/or right-wing oppressive governments vs. left-wing oppressive governments, please take it to the «Great Debates» forum.
How am I to argue against your points? You’re waging a theological debate after all. Still, let me try to answer your accusation, and reply to your mathematical definition of Evil.
a) Yes, I am fully aware of how many people died because of communism. After all, I live less than 40 miles from where the iron curtain was. And believe me, Communism was a concern at school. And I’m very glad I was born this side of the iron curtain.
b) Communism was five-thousand times more evil than the Juntas in Southern America? I’m sure you would like to tell that a mother who has lost her son during the Pinochet/Somoza/Noriega regime? Killing a person is always wrong, and I think it’s even worse if you try to weigh one death against another. Such a kind of bookkeeping is cynic and an insult for all the victims.
so please, try to see matters differentiated. At least a little bit.
No. Even if we take as a given that poor speakers are dumber than average, the poor speaking would be merely a symptom of the dumbness, not the cause. A stupid person who is a good public speaker could manifest his stupidity in different ways and still be able to memorize and repeat a speech perfectly. Of course, due to teleprompters, often people will not need to memorize the speech, just read it. If you have a teleprompter, you don’t need to be smart, you just need good presentation skills.
Thanks so much for the baseless personal attack, I really appreciate it. Of course, I must note that this is an argumentum ad hominem (specifically, ad hominem abusive).
Furthermore, I would like to note that I did not call Reagan, Quayle, or Bush Jr. stupid in my post. I didn’t comment about my opinion of any of their intelligences at all, even in inference. Let’s look again at what I said, sentence by sentence.
So, what I said here is that regardless of whether Opus1 was correct about Quayle being the victim of the media’s practices rather than stupid, your argument that those same people that call Quayle stupid should then laud Reagan as brilliant was faulty logic. Quayle’s and Reagan’s actual intelligences are irrelevant to that. Even if you replace Quayle and Reagan with two people who are almost universally considered to be a stupid poor public speaker and an intelligent great public speaker, it’s still faulty logic.
I doubt there was confusion with this sentence, as I’m merely pointing out the name of this type of faulty logic. Moving on, we get to
in which I’m correcting something you said in your post. You said “look at those who claim Quayle and Bush are stupid because they’re not good speakers.” I was correcting your cause and effect. The argument that people that call Quayle stupid make is that he is a poor public speaker because he’s stupid. That is, stupidity is the cause of his poor public speaking. Even if you don’t think that’s true in Quayle’s case, it is true with regards to some people. (Of course, stupidity is not the only possible cause of poor public speaking. A shy nuclear physisict probably wouldn’t be a good public speaker either.) However, you said that people that call Quayle stupid make the argument that Quayle is stupid because he’s a poor public speaker, which lends itself to two interpretations.
The only evidence they have is Quayle’s poor public speaking performances, they jumped to the conclusion he was dumb because of them without looking any further. I’m sure they have other evidence, or they’d be willing to withdraw the statement. (I’m assuming we’re not talking about comedians here, but people who legitimately think Quayle dumb.)
Somehow, Quayle’s poor public speaking skills are degrading his brain, actually causing his stupidity. I don’t think they’re making this one, and I’m guessing you don’t either.
Either way, I don’t think it’s necessary to jump on my back for attempting a correction, especially considering you seem to have misunderstood me. If I have misunderstood you (and I think I may have), I apologize.
Sorry to interrupt the communism/capitalism stuff, but as regards the dumbest President I feel I should really mention Leonard L. Brent. He was so stupid he forgot to even run for office.
From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1984):
usage Although still occas. marked with a disapproving [sic], data is well established both as a singular and as a plural noun. The singular data is regularly used as a mass noun denoting a collection of material; it is almost never used as a count noun equivalent to datum. Our evidence shows plural use to be considerably more common than singular use.
Cecil 1, christophercampbell 0 **
[/QUOTE]
Note that Webster’s no longer even attempts to denote proper usage, but only common usage. Cecil: still 0.
GWB mangles the language – but do did Eisenhower, who proved his ability as a commander in WW II. Much as I dislike him, I feel he’s a person of reasonable intelligence who has a speech impediment (probably dyslexia).
Nixon was NOT stupid – just arrogant, vicious, and neurotic as all get-out. He was also the only president who could have opened the door to China without being branded soft on Communism by Nixon.
C’mon, you don’t really think Gore said that, did you? You haven’t really read his book, have you; you’re just quoting a right-wing fabrication.
You trying to rewrite history, IzzyR? Please note the following Quayle quotes (from the venerated snopes.com)…are you going to claim they’re the product of late-night comedians?
So YES, he definitely was “more prone to this type of mis-statement than any other politician”.
It certainly is indicative of intelligence. An intelligent person, whether the person is comfortable speaking in front of a crowd or not, will read the speach, and perhaps even practice in front of the mirror a few times. If time is an issue, the person could do it in the morning while getting ready (shaving, putting on makeup, in the shower, whatever).
It’s hard to respect a person when that person is expected to make speeches as part of his/her job, but can’t even respect his/her audience enough to practice in order to not make a fool of him/herself.
