A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

--Marcus Tullius Cicero
Roman Orator, statesman, 42 B.C.

Congratulations Jonny boy! Another Sifter who took the hard road, with 3 queue slots and determination.

As for channels I think *oration or something of the like.

>> ^MINK:
damn. he is very very very good with a mic, and he keeps getting better.
i don't believe he will bring free ice-cream and healthcare for everyone. But he is the only presidential candidate (except maybe Kennedy) who I have ever seen talking like a human being. It's actually stunning.
So he's either just a great orator, or a genuinely great man. Looks like we are gonna find out real soon.


poor youngling, you know not what you wish for...

damn. he is very very very good with a mic, and he keeps getting better.

i don't believe he will bring free ice-cream and healthcare for everyone. But he is the only presidential candidate (except maybe Kennedy) who I have ever seen talking like a human being. It's actually stunning.

So he's either just a great orator, or a genuinely great man. Looks like we are gonna find out real soon.

If only being a POW was a good prerequisite for being President. Far as I can tell, being a POW qualifies you to be a bonefide hero and I don't think any left-leaning sifter, even the most hippie liberal among us, would disagree.

However, being a hero doesn't necessarily improve judgment, doesn't necessarily make you a good orator, and while it probably should improve the steadfastness of character, in Mr. McCain's case, it did not: McCain is very changeable as is exemplified by comparing his positions in 2008 to those of 2000.

So you see, we're looking at all the factors.

It's not like all of us are seething with hatred for McCain. Sure, such a scenario makes selling this video much much easier for you but it's not quite accurate. We all recognize that McCain suffered, however, we look for more than that in our Presidents, capice?

As far as his oration skills, this vid was *obviously* chopped to make it sound like he has 3 words.

So does this guy know what he wants to do when he grows up? Maybe be a great orator?

"You cant have it both ways, either god is very simple, and not worth worshiping or he is extremely complex.. and doesn't exist." -dawkins is excellent orator, and soft spoken, but you can tell when he is angry. Just watch the Dawkins v Haggard uncut video.

If a therapist tells a client to kill themselves, and the client does so, that person didn't need to live. So in that case, I'd thank the therapist for ridding the earth of a weak person who took the advice of anybody in authority because they were too weak to make their own informed decisions. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If a leader orates beautifully about killing millions of Jews, but he is speaking to an empty room because everyone is at home enjoying time with their families and neighbors, where does his message go? Do six million people end up in gas chambers? It's the people who propel the leader, not his message. That is why I absolve the leader of much of the blame, but condemn the followers. If the German people hadn't been so easily manipulated by a flatulent meth addict because they were reeling from a devastating loss in World War I, Hitler would have been reduced to nothing.

Some people would argue that Hitler was just as much to blame as his followers, but he was just a man with ideas. He couldn't have sent ten million people to their deaths by himself. And Charles Manson couldn't have massacred seven people on his own, either.

You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

That depends on how well the Manson Family could bake.

Squeaky Fromme tried to assassinate Gerald Ford, if you recall. I don't think Manson told her to do that. Some people are just crazy on their own. Maybe the murders would have still occurred, but maybe not. *shrugs*

>> ^Crosswords:
I'm very glad you have high moral standards and a strong will, not everyone does. In fact some people are pretty easily influenced by authority or their peers. And while this doesn't belay that these people are responsible for their actions it also doesn't exonerate those who push them into said actions. If somebody worships the ground I walk on, and I turn around and tell them to go kill some people, am I not responsible for how I used my influence over them? Isn't my influence and direction over them the catalyst? Again unless the influenced was coerced under extreme duress, they still retain responsibility for their action, but person who told them to is also responsible, it was their actions, their misuse of their power that caused the other person.
If a therapist tells a client, "wow you really don't have anything to live for, you should kill yourself", and the client does, is the therapist not responsible? Didn't they, in a position of authority, give the emotionally vulnerable client instructions to do something that would cause irreparable harm?
I would also like to add people can go to prison for conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody told you to kill someone, and you said no, then told the cops that person had tried to get you to kill someone and had solid evidence to the fact, that person is going to jail for a long time, if not life.
So I guess to sum things up, yes the people who actually did the killings were responsible for what they did, and as far as I know, none of them went free. But Manson, who directed them, is also responsible for his actions. You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

What is heroic about inciting people to kill innocents? Ask Paul Tibbets about killing 100,000 civilians for "the good of his country."

Of course I knew Sharon Tate was pregnant. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I don't have any harmful desires to incite others to fulfill. At least not anything I couldn't do myself, if I was so inclined. I admire him, not for the murders, but for his ability to bring people into his circle with his flair for personality. I also admire David Koresh, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, and a myriad of other people who found a way to trick the gullible. I don't admire what they did with their powers, but I still must applaud them for using people who are begging to be used.

The people I do not admire are those who followed the leaders. The gullible, the weak-minded, the easily-distracted lemmings who beg for anybody to relieve them of their need for self-guidance. I feel nothing but anger and contempt for people who sit on the edge of their seat, awestruck and dazed by the words of an orator. You know, the Germans of the early 20th century...many of the Obama supporters of today. Anybody who puts all of their hope into one person to guide them through treacherous waters, instead of navigating it themselves.

>> ^calvados:
>> ^thinker247:
He was the four-star general who ordered his troops into battle, and they willingly followed his orders, because that's what a good soldier does. He's an American hero, but outside of the boundaries of what we call "normal." And that's why he's hated. And that's why I like him, because he's an odd duck.

Where's this "battle" you speak of? There was slaughter, but where is the fight? What is heroic about inciting people to kill innocents?
I would ask whether you know that Sharon Tate was 8½ months pregnant when she was slain, and that she begged her killers to allow her to give birth to her baby before they finished her, but you say you follow serial killers very closely, so of course you knew that, didn't you?
If you honestly admire Charles Manson, does that mean that you, too, want to incite others to carry out your harmful desires?

Well, the whole conversation was about Afghanistan. Suddenly he brings up Iraq?

I went back and listened to it again. Why did he even bring up Pakistan when the conversation was about Afghanistan? He was doing his own Pecking to Death By Ducks over a comment Obama made and he was trying to work it into the conversation.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that this is a rehearsed bit. Topic is Afghanistan? Bring up Pakistan (the country next to Afghanistan, don't you know) and attack Obama.

He blew his line, is what he did.

I'm going to stick to my original premise. Let's stop demanding absolute perfection from everyone in the public eye. I mean, really. These people live with microphones stuck in their face for hours a day. They don't eat well. They're tired. I EXPECT them to make a mistake once in a while. They are human. There is something seriously wrong with public debate when only perfection is allowed.

What is important is to look at the whole. George W also misspeaks. But he misspeaks A LOT. The man is not an orator, is not a statesman, has no natural dignity. I think it is appropriate to hold up his legions of mistakes as a pattern. How the heck anyone ever voted for that man as the Leader of the Free World is a complete mystery to me.

And it is this Pecking by Ducks nonsense that creates automaton politicians. Terrified to make ANY MISTAKE AT ALL, they speak carefully and rehearse and rehearse and rehearse until all the humanity is leached from them. And then they get criticized for that. Gore. Kerry. Clinton.

I am very impressed by Obama, for a number of reasons. One thing in particular -- he has figured out how to stay human and accessible and dignified in such an intense environment. To me, this speaks of a great and quick intelligence. It ain't easy. Who has succeeded at it?

I know that I am a lone voice in the wilderness. The mass snarkiness of the comments on every website proves that, I believe. I'm going to hang in there, though, and say things once in awhile in defense of the basic humanness that binds us all.

Real criticism on real topics, not Pecking. Please.

I really would have loved to hear her identify precisely *why* Obama is an inferior choice to McCain - he wasn't my first choice to be the dem nominee (nor was McCain who I wanted to see for the gop), but I can't really find anything solidly objectionable about him. Certainly a good orator, seems 'presidential' enough, about as far removed from lobbyists as anyone gets. What specifically has Obama done to garner so much ire? Or is it really just as insane as being black or having a muslim-sounding name?

>> ^eoe:
Trying to take a more objective stance on all this from the overwhelmingly liberal point of view on this page, I find it aggravating that -again- the media is concentrating -entirely- on anything -but- the issues themselves. I can, for myself, see whether Obama or McCain is a better orator. I don't need the media to tell me that. What I do need is them to be fact checking the -content- of the speech, which is something I can't necessarily do while they are giving the speech.
For the love of crap, regardless who's on the stiff end of the stick, be it the Democrat or the Republican, or Ralph Nader, I want to hear about the god-damned issues already.


I agree, though if you're interested in the issues, you shouldn't be listening to a campaign speech from the candidate. You should look at their website, and then read the online critiques of the candidate/policy from a source you trust.

For God's sake, don't take the candidate, or TV media's word for it.

Trying to take a more objective stance on all this from the overwhelmingly liberal point of view on this page, I find it aggravating that -again- the media is concentrating -entirely- on anything -but- the issues themselves. I can, for myself, see whether Obama or McCain is a better orator. I don't need the media to tell me that. What I do need is them to be fact checking the -content- of the speech, which is something I can't necessarily do while they are giving the speech.

For the love of crap, regardless who's on the stiff end of the stick, be it the Democrat or the Republican, or Ralph Nader, I want to hear about the god-damned issues already.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bamdrew:
yeah... news has it now that Obama's camp is considering holding a series of public town-hall talks with McCain on the issues, an idea McCain's side proposed... which would really be throwing McCain a bone... because if its down to who can give the best speech and who comes out the best after 3 debates, Obama has it in the bag.

They've been talking about 10 of these town-hall debates, I presume that's in addition to the already scheduled 3 official presidential debates in the fall.
I'd love to see it happen, and I can't fathom the rationale behind it at the McCain campaign. The worst thing they could do is give people a chance to compare Obama and McCain side by side.
It'll be YouTube vs. Feeding Tube.


McCain simply may have no other choice. He's crippled by public financing and the media limelight has effectively eluded him during the over-extended Democratic primary season. This may be his only way to take center stage again. But yeah I agree, it's a fool's errand, Obama is unanimously the superior speaker and orator, he was arguably a weaker debater to Clinton but just reminiscing back to the Republican debates, McCain hardly stood out either. If nothing else, this will give Obama a chance to highlight his utter hypocrisy embodying his image as a 'maverick' and accentuate his recent about-turns on countless social and economic issues. Not to mention, for a party heavily reliant on 'values' voters, rational and meticulous policy issues are hardly going to galvanise support.