I'm sure your not a total looser!
By the way, can you forward your opinion of me to my ATF, I told her I would try to improve. She might not place much weight on your opinion, but every little bit helps.
Thanks in advance!
ROFL..Thanks for the link..I sure am glad Maddow isn't my GF..I bet she's angry, when she wakes up in the morning.
This is a speech for the end of war.
Google FDR's D-Day speech and your eyes mist.
Say what you will about Reagan, but his Boys of Point Du-Hoc speech was universally praised. (Count the "me's" and "I's" in any Obams speech. Count the same word in Point du-Hoc. The only time RR uses "me" is physical placement. e.g. "Before me is...." The speach has nothing to do with him.
Look at Gettysburg Address.
What inspirational lines are there in the speech tonight?
It is the fucking end of a war. Whether you were hawk or dove there should be paragraphs that make your eyes mist.
To be fair, I could only listen to about 15 minutes, but that was because of style, not content.
To be fair to me, a great speaker IS style. His content is secondary. His speaking pulls it off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38944049/ns/politics-white_house/?gt1=43001
Then how can you judge what was in the speech? THAT YOU DID NOT HEAR?
I found out later that I didn't miss much. I think I only missed about five minutes.
But this happens all the time, that people make very good judgments from seeing/hearing/reading/tasting/ or othewise experiences a fair sampling. Here are a few examples:
If you met someone who said they went to a movie, but walked out after an hour because he thought the movie was bad, would you say, "Gosh, how can you tell. You didn't see the whole thing?" Or would you run to see the movie because you hadn't heard anything reliable that was negative.
The same could be said for 100 other things. Did you ever start a book and not finish it? If you got 3/4 through it and didn't finish it, would you be afraid to say you didn't think it was good? WOuld you recommend it to a friend, because you HEARD it was good, even though you couldn't finish it?
It is even more so here. A good speaker keeps the audience engaged. That is his job. That is what makes him a good speaker. If some is initially interested, as I was, and the speaker loses his audience, it reflects on the speaker.
Is it really so hard to understand that a good speaker engages the audience?
Last I heard there were 50k troops in Iraq. US imperialism will never end!
On delivery and believability by a bunch of sub-100-IQ voters, I give him a B+.
On substance, I give him a D.
All he has done is change the term that will be applied because he alleges that combat operations have ended.
I gather that our troops can send back all their weapons and armor now? That they can ship back the tanks and armored humvees and instead drive Buicks? That all the combat medics can return because where there is no combat, there are no combat injuries?
This is such empty horseshit.
I realize the credulous masses are drinking it up and they think his change of terminology means something has really changed -- but it hasn't.
We'll still have tens of thousands of Americans THERE who should be HERE. And they will be armed and armored because members of a host population that most assuredly did NOT send us an invitation want them DEAD.
Also, right now there are 5000 troops with combat orders to engage in special ops with Iraqi soilders not including the 50 000.
I didn't bother watching instead I read it before he gave the speech. Who needs his boring speeches. He can't use up any of my time.
It would have been a great opportunity for unity and “reaching across the aisle”, but he just couldn’t bring himself to set himself aside and take advantage. His limp wrested acclaim of GWB’s patriotism could actually have been taken as more negative than most did. When ever you start a sentence by saying “no one can doubt” you are raising just that, doubt in some people’s minds. Most think he couldn’t be more generous to Bush lest he piss off the far left, but I have no doubt it was his narcissism that prevented him from saying he was wrong and the surge worked.
Also he was dishonest in his characterization of Iraq going forward and the cost to our economy. In terms of dollars the Iraq war cost less over eight years than has the “stimulus” thus far in less than two, and we have less to show for the stimulus. He should be thanking Bush for not taking his own advice to retreat from a failing Iraq. Additionally, the idea that Iran is stronger now because of GWB is preposterous. Were Saddam still in power today Iran and Iraq would both be on the verge of having nukes, turning the region into another India / Pakistan standoff.
BTW, did anyone bother to count the number of times he used “I” and “my/me”?