>> ^raverman:

The interesting point is: As an exceptional orator Obama created lofty world changing expectations.
Those expectations haven't been fulfilled - but that doesn't mean objectively that the presidency is a failure. Far from it.
Next election he just has to speak to the people on achievable goals.


He is for a lot of the people who voted for him...and won't vote for him again.

The interesting point is: As an exceptional orator Obama created lofty world changing expectations.

Those expectations haven't been fulfilled - but that doesn't mean objectively that the presidency is a failure. Far from it.

Next election he just has to speak to the people on achievable goals.

Some people try really hard to come up with something interesting...

He talks about heavy asian accents on words as though that's their definitive way of saying the word. "if you go here and order oren tzu you get orange juice." If you go there and ask for orange juice you'll also get orange juice. They recognize their own deficiency in orating the words properly. Asian people are taught english with typically an american or british accent, and have a LOT of access to hear american english through the media every day.

If it weren't for the internet and mass media communication, he might otherwise be right...which is the irony of him broadcasting this idea on a television show.

"I-I-I-I-I'm-I'm a warrior, for the middle class."

When did this guy start sucking as an orator?

>> ^ForgedReality:

And again he proves that this man is a master orator.


That's what she said

Obama is a great orator, but man, the guy just won't stick up for himself in an interview. He doesn't even let on that he notices O'Reilley is being rude to him. He comes off like that kid in the schoolyard who likes it when the cool kids beat him because he thinks it means they're going to be his friends.

Does he have no handlers? Did nobody prep him on how to speak with such a skilled aggressive windbag hater like O'Reilley?

You misunderstood me. I am not interested in why Hitchens is so against religion--it honestly doesn't matter to me. What interests me is why, despite being such an intelligent person who is claiming to "look for the evidence," he is only willing to look at the evidence that supports his own position. And to be clear, I refer to his position that religion is, in his words, "the main source of hatred in the world." This flies in the face of common sense. Were it true, we would expect predominately religious countries (like Peru or the U.S., for instance)to be hotbeds of hatred. So where's the empirical evidence for this? I certainly haven't heard of any. But that won't stop Hitchens from continuing his rant.

I do want to give Hitchens credit--he makes very pointed cases against certain practices of particular religions. But showing that a particular practice of a particular religion is unethical or immoral is not the same thing as showing that all religions are evil, religious people are stupid, deluded, etc., or the host of other claims that Hitchens (and those like him) makes.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^SDGundamX:
Hitchens is a sharp orator, but I can't understand why people think his arguments are either "rational" or "logical." The following author and his Hitchens' own brother pretty much explain more clearly than I ever could why I can't take Hitchens' arguments (or Dawkins' or Harris' for that matter) seriously.
What Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheists Can Learn from Malcom X
Atheism Aside: Peter Hitchens Journey to Faith
I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against. The cynical part of me thinks its because they get paid a lot of money to write books and appear on TV acting that way. The more hopeful part of me is that they are just over-enthusiastic and will one day realize that the best way to accomplish your goals is probably not to make an enemy out of everybody who doesn't think the same as you.

Rather than 'guessing' at where Hitchens stance on religion came from you could read his autobiography. He has several very personal reasons for hating religion. He opens talking about his mother, who fell for a guy that was a bit of a cultist which eventually led to the double suicide of his mother and the nutter. Then upon going to bury his mother, the local church was reluctant to perform the funeral services because of the stigma around suicide. He found that money was able to smooth over those 'reservations'.
I'm by no means agreeing with Hitchens position on painting all religion that same shade of black, but he hasn't exactly just adopted that stance for no reason.

>> ^SDGundamX:

Hitchens is a sharp orator, but I can't understand why people think his arguments are either "rational" or "logical." The following author and his Hitchens' own brother pretty much explain more clearly than I ever could why I can't take Hitchens' arguments (or Dawkins' or Harris' for that matter) seriously.
What Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheists Can Learn from Malcom X
Atheism Aside: Peter Hitchens Journey to Faith
I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against. The cynical part of me thinks its because they get paid a lot of money to write books and appear on TV acting that way. The more hopeful part of me is that they are just over-enthusiastic and will one day realize that the best way to accomplish your goals is probably not to make an enemy out of everybody who doesn't think the same as you.


Rather than 'guessing' at where Hitchens stance on religion came from you could read his autobiography. He has several very personal reasons for hating religion. He opens talking about his mother, who fell for a guy that was a bit of a cultist which eventually led to the double suicide of his mother and the nutter. Then upon going to bury his mother, the local church was reluctant to perform the funeral services because of the stigma around suicide. He found that money was able to smooth over those 'reservations'.

I'm by no means agreeing with Hitchens position on painting all religion that same shade of black, but he hasn't exactly just adopted that stance for no reason.

Hitchens is a sharp orator, but I can't understand why people think his arguments are either "rational" or "logical." The following author and his Hitchens' own brother pretty much explain more clearly than I ever could why I can't take Hitchens' arguments (or Dawkins' or Harris' for that matter) seriously.

What Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheists Can Learn from Malcom X

Atheism Aside: Peter Hitchens Journey to Faith

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against. The cynical part of me thinks its because they get paid a lot of money to write books and appear on TV acting that way. The more hopeful part of me is that they are just over-enthusiastic and will one day realize that the best way to accomplish your goals is probably not to make an enemy out of everybody who doesn't think the same as you.

Not 100% fact? Please enlighten me on the untruths in this video oration? Don't forget you sources, and Wikipedia does not count because taqiyya means deception of all kinds for the purpose of promoting Islam and saving one's own butt.

I couldn't even finish watching this. However, the POTUS, in my opinion, is one of the least important jobs in society. In fact, so is congress and the judical branch. These jobs are worthless if the populace are filled with morons who simply vote for the girl with the biggest gun or the greatest orator. Even if the public is mostly well-informed, well-intentioned, and are active voters, the government would still be run like a lame chicken if years before bad actions have to be undone. (Wars in Af-gan/Iraq, Gitmo, debt, state of social security, ect.)

What I mean in all this blah-blah is--the President's hands are always tied to politics and voters' ire. Even if it is not, congress or some other entity will balance him out and make his decisions nearly pointless or they will fully go along with him (Bush)and at that point, it is their (congress for example,) powers that get policy made.

Wow, I just woke up and that sounds confusing...

Why is that sarcastic, Hitler was a great orator. How do you think he got to where he did, by his gorgeous mug and stylish mustache?

Obama will come down in history as a master orator.

No he won't. He's barely average as a speaker. Way too artificial. Way too much dependance on his teleprompter. His register is mechanical. His head swinging is distracting. His tone is flat and dull. Only Obama zombies think his speeches are 'great'. What you mean is that he is 'articulate'. He avoids speech flubs like the plague because he knows that is what the far left hated about W. GWB was a much more natural speaker than Obama, but he got mush mouthed a lot and they liked to say it was because he was stupid. Obama doesn't want to be called stupid, so he PAUSES and then he WAITS ... and then he PAUSES so that he can be ... PRECISE and not make a ... MISTAKE! That's not great speaking. It's robotic.

And even the left wing is harping on this particular flub. PotUS's just don't go after the SC. Not ever - let alone in the SotU address. Obama is catching major flak from this. It may be red meat for the far left fringes, but it was stupid of him to do. The totality of the speech? Pretty much as expected. "Wasn't my fault... MY administration... MY program... MY plan... Me me me me me." Speech was a dud.

I like the sound of the soundbite. The speech sounds good. Obama will come down in history as a master orator. But with his policies and appointments I think he's on the trajectory of losing his political base that elected him.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:< br />I don't get why people say Obama is a great speaker. He isn't. A great speaker is someone who makes a speech that everybody can appreciate and who can make the audience feel like he understands or at least empathizes with them. Obama doesn't do that. Obama's speeches are halting, staccato, and bland. Every time he tries to sound 'fired up' he comes across as cringe-worthily unconvincing. The speeches are filled with catch phrases, nothing-isms, and vapidity. He isn't a 'great orator' at all. He is - in fact - flat, uninspiring, and weak. I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but Clinton was 10X the 'orator' that Obama is. If I was to make a rhetorical comparison, I would say that Obama is more like George Bush (I) than anyone else. Can we please stop with the 'great speech' and 'what a speaker' crap? I've heard great speakers, and Obummer is no great speaker.


Who do you consider a great speaker?

The Sham-wow boy?