Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>First things first: when you say "you" do you mean literally me/barboy? Because I don't orate. If I were an elected or appointed figure, then I should be able to speak well enough without a script.<<< Then you are saying that even though you "don't orate" you know what it takes to be one? Without any real knowledge of how it works, you can you make a decision that if they don't free wheel it then they are not very capable or worthy of your attention? Not to mention the fact the Obama, in particular, has shown over and over that he certainly is capable of speaking without a script and quite eloquently too.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I take it then that it's not ok for Romney to use a teleprompter then either: <a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=romney+teleprompter&qpvt=romney+teleprompter&FORM=igre" target="_blank">http://www.bing.com/images/sea...ORM=igre</a> Oh, wait, what's that? Why it's Romney with a telprompter! Amazing for someone who NEVER uses one to use is so often.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If I were an elected or appointed figure, then I should be able to speak well enough without a script.>> For forty minutes? Not gonna happen. My undergrad degree is in Speech Communication. Speeches lasting longer than 10 minutes require notes or prompting, unless you have weeks to spend memorizing it for hours every day. No politician should ever be required to speak extemporaneously at such an important occasion as their acceptance speech. They've got swing voters to court. The last thing they need is look like Clint Eastwood arguing with furniture.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Then you are saying that even though you "don't orate" you know what it takes to be one?/// ....never said that but nice try anyway. Please reread what I wrote. ///Without any real knowledge of how it works, you can you make a decision that if they don't free wheel it then they are not very capable or worthy of your attention?/// ......I am ready to talk more when you make more sense. ///Not to mention the fact the Obama, in particular, has shown over and over that he certainly is capable of speaking without a script and quite eloquently too./// .......actually, this deserves a response: Using a berating tone on your #3 you question the notion of spontaneous speeches and then close to 4 hrs later turn around with #21 to tell me just how capable an official can be with improvisational talk.
Originally Posted By barboy ///For forty minutes?/// Again, I've seen several pastors using just a skeleton for notes orate longer than 40 minutes, way longer. I watched one who 'prophesied' for 90 minutes+ without any notes. I had university professors who lectured using no notes for 50 minute class periods. ///Not gonna happen./// very true, because politicians want to appear flawless instead of human. But an unrehearsed delivery comes across as more honest. Packaged pickup lines in a bar, planned sales pitches at the Toyota dealship and fully polished political speeches can come across as untrustworthy, I say.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ......I am ready to talk more when you make more sense<<< I'm sure I would have made more sense if I had a teleprompter.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Again, I've seen several pastors using just a skeleton for notes orate longer than 40 minutes, way longer. I watched one who 'prophesied' for 90 minutes+ without any notes. I had university professors who lectured using no notes for 50 minute class periods.>> Of course they could, because those were stock speeches they had been giving for years. Sure, the speech gets massaged a bit and tweaked a bit for that particular audience. But the core of the material, the foundation of the speech, never changes. That's why they can deliver it without notes. It's the same basic material being given, over and over and over again. Ask stand-up comedians about this. They all have hours of material residing in their brains like a Rolodex of Jokes, ready to go at a moment's notice. Night after night of performing the material for years on end... it's going to become second nature.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Again, I've seen several pastors using just a skeleton for notes orate longer than 40 minutes, way longer.<< So have I, and you what they do? They repeat themselves, over and over and over and when you think they're done ... they repeat themselves again. It really made me appreciate the relative brevity of a Catholic homily. Then again, being able to stand at the pulpit and babble for 40+ minutes is a core job skill for protestant pastors, especially those in non liturgical churches, as the sermon is often the core of the service (when they aren't singing). The core job skill for the president (or any executive for that matter) is to make decisions with insufficient data.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "make decisions with insufficient data." That's something he has in common with Fox News viewers.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The notion that somehow using a TelePromptor instead of memorizing is some sort of crutch is ludicrous. Is the assumption here that they're cheating by reading a script? If a pastor at a church wants to go on for 90 minutes with no notes -- hallelujah! Using a TelePromptor to read a speech the same as reading their speech from a sheet of paper. It just allows them to keep their heads from nodding up and down too look at the page. Romney and Obama aren't writing their own speeches. Does that make them less credible too?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>"make decisions with insufficient data." That's something he has in common with Fox News viewers.<< LOL! Except the President is expected to make GOOD decisions with insufficient data.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Does that make them less credible too?/// Is that a real question? Or sheer Rhetoric? ......my answer, if it is indeed a real question: ABSOLUTELY I expect our leaders to have enough faith in their own thoughts as to show us how they think. I respect the one who reasons on his/her own but has the wisdom to surround himself with experts in their respective fields(military, economics, environment, global cultures). When these leaders have others write for them, they become mere spokespeople/message deliverers; I would rather a bona fide author address us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know about Romney, but by all reports Obama has a big hand in his major speeches, with polish added by others. Clinton was the same, and that doesn't bother me much. A guy who has MOST of his speeches written by others - yeah, that kinda does.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Wouldn't we all. However, todays world doesn't allow for that. With multitudes of people out there ready to pounce on every misspoken word, pick apart by supplying every possible definition to every word, slant them in the direction that will either support or justify their anger, and generally not listen to anything that they don't want to hear, it's just to dangerous. Blame it on us! We are the reason! A teleprompter is nothing more than an electronic set of notes. Every orator uses notes and the ones that don't end up sounding like Clint Eastwood... confused, disjointed and senile.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Every orator uses notes and the ones that don't end up sounding like Clint Eastwood... confused, disjointed and senile.<< YES
