Enzo wrote:Well, when we start making folks president based upon their demeanor on an artificial debate stage, Rudy might be something.
Enzo wrote:Good point.
I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.
My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:Enzo wrote:Good point.
I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.
My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good
Before my time, but I remember reading articles about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy is described as a modern, media-savvy politician, with Nixon criticized as old-school, for example, Kennedy would look at the camera while speaking, whereas Nixon would look at the debate moderator, etc. :)
Nixon was generally considered to be the “loser” of that first debate, mainly because he did not prepare for the possibilities and peculiarities of the medium of television. His poor makeup, haggard appearance due to a knee injury and hospitalization earlier in the month, and his grey suit, which blended into the backdrop of the set, contributed to Nixon's poor showing on TV, although his performance came across much better on the radio. While the consensus on the three subsequent debates was that Nixon clearly performed better and even won in some cases, his TV performance in that first debate haunted him for the rest of the season.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:When it comes to politics, it is hard to top Sir Humphrey Appleby :)
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:Enzo wrote:Good point.
I think each of us individually decides to take up the national passtime at his own point in time. I was hoping to maybe delay that in at least one case.
My own political thinking is of course [strike]impeckable, immpeccable, impeccibel[/strike], pretty good
Before my time, but I remember reading articles about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy is described as a modern, media-savvy politician, with Nixon criticized as old-school, for example, Kennedy would look at the camera while speaking, whereas Nixon would look at the debate moderator, etc. :)
When it comes to politics, it is hard to top Sir Humphrey Appleby :)
Enzo wrote:Well, when we start making folks president based upon their demeanor on an artificial debate stage, Rudy might be something.
KLA2 wrote:A trick of the eye; in context, as I scanned that, I saw Sir Hubert Humphry.
KLA2 wrote:Hope you find that as amusing as I did.
Enzo wrote:I have no idea either. Can the queen knight someone not a citizen of the empire?
Enzo wrote:But assuming she could, I don't know why we couldn't refer to one as Sir. The title would have no effect here. We have Dr.Phil on TV, I think it would be kinda like that. Dr. Demento on radio and TV. And Dr.Pepper in the cooler.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:But my understanding is that in the official royal protocol, non-British citizens who are knighted are not "sir." But again, this is just something I picked up somewhere, it could be wrong...
Wikipedia wrote:Most members are citizens of the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth realms of which the Queen is Head of State. Citizens of other countries, however, may be admitted as "honorary members". They do not count towards the numerical limits aforementioned, nor are holders of the GBE, KBE or DBE addressed as "Sir" or "Dame". They may be made full members if they subsequently become British citizens or citizens of other realms of the Queen.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:We can call them whatever we like :)
Enzo wrote:Explain? Sure. I don't consider demeanor to be an indicator of leadership and wisdom. Nor an indicator of how good a decision maker one would be under fire. Remember after 9/11, Rudy was the guy yelling about maybe not letting the new mayor-elect take over.
Both Tom Landry AND John Madden were effective, winning football coaches. If public demeanor determined leadership, ONE of those guys would have been a loser.
Halcyon Dayz wrote:If you don't vote, you don't count.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:Halcyon Dayz wrote:If you don't vote, you don't count.
Even if you do vote, you don't count sometimes :P One has to be a swing voter to count...
Dragon Star wrote:Exactly my thoughts.
Yea, it goes both ways, voting against just to eliminate has advantages.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:Even if you do vote, you don't count sometimes :P One has to be a swing voter to count...Halcyon Dayz wrote:If you don't vote, you don't count.
Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:If I'm a politician, it seems to me there are two kinds of people who can't influence my policies - the people who will never vote for me, and the people who will always vote for me. The people I have to worry about are those who might vote for me :P
Return to Current Events and Politics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests