From Time Magazine

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod: "Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.." That's what I took from the 60 Minutes interview. He was an excellent debater, always had control of the direction the interview was going, and also deflected any questions that might make him look bad. That's what I was talking about. Not that the guy is a "good guy," but that the guy s good at playing the political game. When I hear Bush address the nation, he comes off as though he is annoyed by the questions and is generally just pissed off. He comes off as condescending (in my opinion, let's make that clear) and defensive. I'm not saying that being a good/bad public speaker is indicative of a person's ability to be president. What I am saying, is that I think our current president pales in comparison to a guy like Bill Clinton, or even John Kerry when it comes to public speaking. Maybe it's just me, but when I see Bush on TV answering a question he looks like he's just about to throw a tantrum. I never got that feeling from Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr when they ran the country. All of those men had a quality about them that I think George W. is missing. I think that lack of smoothness is one of the main reasons many people in Europe don't like Bush. He comes off as lacking class. (Just my humble opinion)

[Oziumrules 0]

Oh no, here we go again!

[Waffles2003 1]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod: "Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.." That's what I took from the 60 Minutes interview. He was an excellent debater, always had control of the direction the interview was going, and also deflected any questions that might make him look bad. That's what I was talking about. Not that the guy is a "good guy," but that the guy s good at playing the political game. When I hear Bush address the nation, he comes off as though he is annoyed by the questions and is generally just pissed off. He comes off as condescending (in my opinion, let's make that clear) and defensive. I'm not saying that being a good/bad public speaker is indicative of a person's ability to be president. What I am saying, is that I think our current president pales in comparison to a guy like Bill Clinton, or even John Kerry when it comes to public speaking. Maybe it's just me, but when I see Bush on TV answering a question he looks like he's just about to throw a tantrum. I never got that feeling from Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr when they ran the country. All of those men had a quality about them that I think George W. is missing. I think that lack of smoothness is one of the main reasons many people in Europe don't like Bush. He comes off as lacking class. (Just my humble opinion)

I agree with you. Bush speaking skills are well below average whether it be in an interview on TV or when he gives a speech.Also, a lot of Euros dont like him because of his attitude. Bush thinks he is on top of the world and he can tell people how to run their countries. He cheated his way in the first election and people were dumb enough to vote him in the second time. Thank goodness he cant be reelected again.

[El Guapo 8]

I have no qualms with what you said before or here and actually agree with you one this point. Bush is a terrible public speaker and I wish he would go to the Tony Blair school of public speaking, in fact I am embarassed for him someimes when he opens his mouth. He would be a terrible freestyle rapper But as I have said before I also do not think he is as bad of a president as everyone thinks, but he could have done better.

[Acadiamonds 0]

Yes, Bush is a horrible orator. Ahmadinejad really isn't that intelligent, he just knows how to take a question off topic.

[Guero 0]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod: "Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.." That's what I took from the 60 Minutes interview. He was an excellent debater, always had control of the direction the interview was going, and also deflected any questions that might make him look bad. That's what I was talking about. Not that the guy is a "good guy," but that the guy s good at playing the political game. When I hear Bush address the nation, he comes off as though he is annoyed by the questions and is generally just pissed off. He comes off as condescending (in my opinion, let's make that clear) and defensive. I'm not saying that being a good/bad public speaker is indicative of a person's ability to be president. What I am saying, is that I think our current president pales in comparison to a guy like Bill Clinton, or even John Kerry when it comes to public speaking. Maybe it's just me, but when I see Bush on TV answering a question he looks like he's just about to throw a tantrum. I never got that feeling from Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr when they ran the country. All of those men had a quality about them that I think George W. is missing. I think that lack of smoothness is one of the main reasons many people in Europe don't like Bush. He comes off as lacking class. (Just my humble opinion)

(removes pants) What?! I'm just following the rules!!Anyways...condescending...lacking class. Whatever. The way Matt Lauer interviews Bush is condescending..as is Peter Jennings. Bill Clinton was always thrown soft balls. Mike Wallace this last Sunday asks him a pointed question, and he flies off the handle. Bush has a penis. So does Bill Clinton, Mike Wallace, my neighbor and most men in this country. I'm not really sure how this applies to this discussion, but I figured it was worth mentioning. DN - Regarding Christianity: Are you a free-willer or a Calvinist?

[princeof56k 0]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod: "Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.." That's what I took from the 60 Minutes interview. He was an excellent debater, always had control of the direction the interview was going, and also deflected any questions that might make him look bad. That's what I was talking about. Not that the guy is a "good guy," but that the guy s good at playing the political game.

This makes a lot more sense about what your were trying to say in your blog. It just didnt come off that way to a lot of people. I never thought you really liked the guy, and upon initially reading the blog, I just thought your initial statements were poorly worded. I knew what you were trying to say, but I also knew people would take it the wrong way. When you discuss a hot issue such as this, you need to choose your words carefully. No big deal.

[NicksDad1970 0]

Clinton didn't have it hard until he got caught with his pants down and his cigar... well u know.Clinton and Reagan were smooth operators. Lil Bush has been bashed since day one. So my guess is we'd all become a lil defensive if that happened to us.But no doubt lil Bush isn't the best speaker in 3rd grade.

[burgerman 0]

Each President has their own style. Bush isn't a very good communicator and gives off a Texas cowboy image that is the US sterotype around the world. I have been in politics 28 years, I know most of the US politicians DN is speaking about. Gore and Kerry were horribly flawed candidates and each should have beaten Bush. Bush has done well with the economy but his presidency will be judged based on his reaction to 9/11 and the war in Iraq. His present approval rating is deserved. It's too bad Democrats didn't nominate better candidates in 2000 and 2004.Burgerman

[Ict2caneff 0]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod:"Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.."The title of this articel "A Date With A Dangerous Mind". What have you proven? He is "Slippery" "gifted at spin". By the way, I googled "Sagawersia" and there need for nuclear enery to survive but we won't give it to them....guess what. The only hit returned was to your blog, I don't believe there is a "Sagawersia" in need of nuclear power that is suffering because we won't give it to them because they won't renounce their Muslim beliefs. A falsehood you give to support your claim and when a person looks further they find there is no such country.In addition, the US is not the only country with nuclear energy. Please see the following article:Worldwide Benefits: More than 400 nuclear power plants are operating in 25 countries around the world today, supplying almost 17 percent of the world's electricity. In most countries, nuclear energy plays an even larger role as a source of electricity than in the United States. Many of these nations are building new nuclear energy plants to meet the needs of their growing populations and expanding economies. About 83 new nuclear energy plants are currently being built around the world. (Source: International Atomic Enery Agency)Greenpeace states the following information on their website:It is a simple fact that every state that has nuclear power capability, has nuclear weapon capability. So out of the current 44 nuclear power states, we could potentially have 44 nuclear weapons states. Several nations have used their civil nuclear-operations to develop weapons capability, including India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is not just us saying this, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA said: "Should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle capability decide, for whatever reason, to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months."The world's growing stockpile of civilian-use plutonium is a cause of proliferation concern. By the end of 2003, approximately 238 tons of plutonium had been separated in commercial reprocessing facilities, compared to 250 tons, which were generated for nuclear weapons. Some 103 tons of this military plutonium has been declared 'excess' and will be added to the 'civil' plutonium stockpile.Most of the military plutonium belongs to Russia (130 tons) and the US (100 tons). While military plutonium production has almost stopped completely after the end of the cold war, commercial reprocessing continues.Considering that only five kilograms of reactor plutonium is enough to fabricate a crude nuclear warhead - the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 and killed 50,000 people contained 6.1 kilograms of plutonium - the security of the plutonium stockpiles is paramount. By the way, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today called and want their headlines back. So without giving verbatum speach that can be read by anyone passing a newstand please answer the following:1. What are the biggest mistakes Pres. Bush has made and how is he personally accountable for them?2. Which countries Absolutely hate us and why?3. Why does Pres. Bush hate Muslims and blacks? Please give evidence beside Katrina (which you need to also hold Mayor Nagin accountable for if you are really fair minded)? I guess his friendship w/ Condi Rice is just glitz? I really don't DESPISE you. That takes too much energy. It seems as if you read a headline and never go beyond the text and you take it for the truth and you never ask the question "Who wrote this, and what was their motive." I voted for Clinton and I voted for Bush. Guess what my political affiliation is? I will be in Vegas the weekend of Oct. 13 because my daughter will be playing in a softball torunament. I would LOVE to discuss this with you in person one on one. I would be willing to buy you a great dinner. My son is due back from Iraq at the end of October and he has faught for your and my right to say what we want. If you'd like to take me up on dinner you can find my info as I am signed up on your site. Take care and Promise me to LOOK Beyond the Headline...people have motives for their actions just like at a poker table.

[Triple Lucky 0]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod:"Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.."The title of this articel "A Date With A Dangerous Mind". What have you proven? He is "Slippery" "gifted at spin". By the way, I googled "Sagawersia" and there need for nuclear enery to survive but we won't give it to them....guess what. The only hit returned was to your blog, I don't believe there is a "Sagawersia" in need of nuclear power that is suffering because we won't give it to them because they won't renounce their Muslim beliefs. A falsehood you give to support your claim and when a person looks further they find there is no such country.In addition, the US is not the only country with nuclear energy. Please see the following article:Worldwide Benefits: More than 400 nuclear power plants are operating in 25 countries around the world today, supplying almost 17 percent of the world's electricity. In most countries, nuclear energy plays an even larger role as a source of electricity than in the United States. Many of these nations are building new nuclear energy plants to meet the needs of their growing populations and expanding economies. About 83 new nuclear energy plants are currently being built around the world. (Source: International Atomic Enery Agency)Greenpeace states the following information on their website:It is a simple fact that every state that has nuclear power capability, has nuclear weapon capability. So out of the current 44 nuclear power states, we could potentially have 44 nuclear weapons states. Several nations have used their civil nuclear-operations to develop weapons capability, including India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is not just us saying this, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA said: "Should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle capability decide, for whatever reason, to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months."The world's growing stockpile of civilian-use plutonium is a cause of proliferation concern. By the end of 2003, approximately 238 tons of plutonium had been separated in commercial reprocessing facilities, compared to 250 tons, which were generated for nuclear weapons. Some 103 tons of this military plutonium has been declared 'excess' and will be added to the 'civil' plutonium stockpile.Most of the military plutonium belongs to Russia (130 tons) and the US (100 tons). While military plutonium production has almost stopped completely after the end of the cold war, commercial reprocessing continues.Considering that only five kilograms of reactor plutonium is enough to fabricate a crude nuclear warhead - the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 and killed 50,000 people contained 6.1 kilograms of plutonium - the security of the plutonium stockpiles is paramount. By the way, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today called and want their headlines back. So without giving verbatum speach that can be read by anyone passing a newstand please answer the following:1. What are the biggest mistakes Pres. Bush has made and how is he personally accountable for them?2. Which countries Absolutely hate us and why?3. Why does Pres. Bush hate Muslims and blacks? Please give evidence beside Katrina (which you need to also hold Mayor Nagin accountable for if you are really fair minded)? I guess his friendship w/ Condi Rice is just glitz? I really don't DESPISE you. That takes too much energy. It seems as if you read a headline and never go beyond the text and you take it for the truth and you never ask the question "Who wrote this, and what was their motive." I voted for Clinton and I voted for Bush. Guess what my political affiliation is? I will be in Vegas the weekend of Oct. 13 because my daughter will be playing in a softball torunament. I would LOVE to discuss this with you in person one on one. I would be willing to buy you a great dinner. My son is due back from Iraq at the end of October and he has faught for your and my right to say what we want. If you'd like to take me up on dinner you can find my info as I am signed up on your site. Take care and Promise me to LOOK Beyond the Headline...people have motives for their actions just like at a poker table.

It's always amazing to me that people like Daniel and other celebrities don't realize that yes they have the right to state they opinion but I am not sure they realize the consequences of their freedom opf speech. Even though I still have respect for Daniel, I certainly have changed my opinion of him and most liklely reduce the amount of time that I watch him on TV. In the long run his freedom of speech which by the way was provided by Presidents such as Bush who are willing to take unpopular stances against the rest of the world. Unfortunaltely, the character of a President is no longer important to a great deal of people. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, there is one thing for sure while he was President of the US, I showed my respect to the position even having to bite my tongue. The majority of the people including Daniel don't really have the knowledge to judge whether Bush or any President for that matter is doing a good job. In fact, I would fall in that category as well.Any way Daniel you have the right to express yourself but you need to understand there is a consequence financially. I just don't understand why you don't just use some common sense.Enough said! B)

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Relax, Daniel, we all knew what you were talking about. Don't worry about those people who choose to distort the meaning of your words for whatever reason.

[seriousjoker 0]

I'm not saying that being a good/bad public speaker is indicative of a person's ability to be president.

I tend to diagree. That's pretty much what presidents of Iran and U.S. have to do.Take trips to diffrent places and give speeches that somebody else has written for them.

[AceyDeucy 0]

By the way, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today called and want their headlines back. So without giving verbatum speach that can be read by anyone passing a newstand please answer the following:1. What are the biggest mistakes Pres. Bush has made and how is he personally accountable for them?2. Which countries Absolutely hate us and why?3. Why does Pres. Bush hate Muslims and blacks? Please give evidence beside Katrina (which you need to also hold Mayor Nagin accountable for if you are really fair minded)? I guess his friendship w/ Condi Rice is just glitz?

Just because I feel like it:1. The insanely out-of-control federal budget, where the President did not issue a single veto his first six years in office; The decision to go to war in Iraq, which was clearly his to make; the continued employment of Donald Rumsfeld, who offered to resign and had his resignation declined by Bush; The appointment of Michael Brown to head FEMA, a presidential appointment; the decision to form the Department of Homeland Security at all. Just off the top of my head.2. Primarily nations in the Middle East and North Korea. Middle Eastern nations (presently) have their primary issue because of the Iraq Invasion, thought this roots back to our support of Israel, which became inflamed when Bush changed the US stance from "force Israel to the table," to "Unleash Israel." north korea's primary issue stems from Bush recanting on a lot of the Clinton-era agreements we put in place.3. I think the issue with Muslims is fairly obvious given our current state of international affairs. The reason Bush takes more heat than Ray Nagin is because Ray Nagin's primary error was failure to act decisively enough before the hurricane hit, whereas Bush is criticized for failing to react AT ALL for several days after the fact there was a disaster became apparent. Should Nagin have forcibly evacuated the city ahead of time, or at least retained a group of people with CDLs and a supply of diesel to operate busses? Yes. Should Bush have used his title as commander-in-chief to nationalize the National Guard, and bring them, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines into New Orleans within three days of the city flooding? Yes. Do you see why Bush's error is more offensive, and begs reasonable people to ask if cares at all about the overwhelmingly black population of people trapped in N.O.?

[Balloon guy 158]

Clinton didn't have it hard until he got caught with his pants down and his cigar... well u know.Clinton and Reagan were smooth operators. Lil Bush has been bashed since day one. So my guess is we'd all become a lil defensive if that happened to us.But no doubt lil Bush isn't the best speaker in 3rd grade.

There are things that are unforgivable.When JFK debated Nixon, most people that heard it on radio thought Nixon won, those that watched it on TV gave it to JFK. That was the first time we realized that we needed to wrap our pres in a pretty smooth package to make the TV happy.This country is too busy worrying about how our President looks, vs what he does.Kerry( who went to vietnam ) was a dork, deserved to lose. Algore is making a joke of himself, Clinton is trying hard to stay relevant. The Dems are in more trouble than we are.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Ok, just to prove that I'm not "crazy" or out of line with thinking that this man makes for a good politician, I wanted to show you guys all a quote from the recent TIME magazine piece written by Scott MacLeod: "Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection.." That's what I took from the 60 Minutes interview. He was an excellent debater, always had control of the direction the interview was going, and also deflected any questions that might make him look bad. That's what I was talking about. Not that the guy is a "good guy," but that the guy s good at playing the political game. When I hear Bush address the nation, he comes off as though he is annoyed by the questions and is generally just pissed off. He comes off as condescending (in my opinion, let's make that clear) and defensive. I'm not saying that being a good/bad public speaker is indicative of a person's ability to be president. What I am saying, is that I think our current president pales in comparison to a guy like Bill Clinton, or even John Kerry when it comes to public speaking. Maybe it's just me, but when I see Bush on TV answering a question he looks like he's just about to throw a tantrum. I never got that feeling from Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr when they ran the country. All of those men had a quality about them that I think George W. is missing. I think that lack of smoothness is one of the main reasons many people in Europe don't like Bush. He comes off as lacking class. (Just my humble opinion)

Did that article happen to mention that he's a crazed, genocidal, anti-semite who would have all Christians and Jews killed? Or at least reference it?You didn't. That's why Time > Daniel Negreanu.

[1969_F85 0]

Baby Bush- No, I am not that energetic to get into how much I hate that thing. (personal opinion and I don't needs facts to back it up)Daddy Bush- Did ok, nothing real bad. Handled the Desert Storm very well. Reagan- Good President, did a lot of great things. But I didn't care (and still don't) for Trickle Down Economics because it helps the rich get richer. Great philosphy if the rich actually did reinvest instead of funding offshore movements and bank accounts. Ahmadinejad- Probably a nut job, but I am not informed enough to really have an opinion about him. If he is anything like the other leaders of Iran then he should have his testicles papercut a thousand times then have salt water poured on them. Hmmm, imgaine that. Ouch!Clinton- Come on! Who wouldn't want to get a blow job in the Oval office!!! Basically, this post was me just blowing off a little bit. flame if you want, but do so with a smile.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I have been in politics 28 years, I know most of the US politicians DN is speaking about. Gore and Kerry were horribly flawed candidates and It's too bad Democrats didn't nominate better candidates in 2000 and 2004.Burgerman

FYP

Did that article happen to mention that he's a crazed, genocidal, anti-semite who would have all Christians and Jews killed? Or at least reference it?

Wow. You'd think people would be interested in that, less than 100 years after the HOLOCAUSThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

[What is 7x6 0]

Did that article happen to mention that he's a crazed, genocidal, anti-semite who would have all Christians and Jews killed? Or at least reference it?You didn't. That's why Time > Daniel Negreanu.

Check and Mate

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't think anyone on Earth thinks that Bush is a great public speaker. But he has values and sticks to what he believes. I follow that kind of leadership.

[AceyDeucy 0]

I don't think anyone on Earth thinks that Bush is a great public speaker. But he has values and sticks to what he believes. I follow that kind of leadership.

The list of people who match that description is long and not illustrious. David Koresh springs to mind.

[brvheart 1,752]

The list of people who match that description is long and not illustrious. David Koresh springs to mind.

That's when you actually use your brain and decide if 'what they believe' agrees with what you believe. But obviously you are right... David Koresh was deemed a good leader by a small group of people that believed what he believed and admired his convictions. I appreciate your reinforcement of my point.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

There's really no comparison between Ahmadinejad and Bush.Bush; Dumb, tough-talking redneck who's made some questionable decisions and is extremely inarticulate. Ahmadinejad; Smooth talking, genocidal, anti-semite, crazed, lunatic who would exterminate everyone who's posted on this board for the simple fact that we play poker(gamble). I'll take the Texan who can't speak over the smooth-talking Catholic/Christian/Jew-Buster, thanks.

[starkwired 0]

There's really no comparison between Ahmadinejad and Bush.Bush; Dumb, tough-talking redneck who's made some questionable decisions and is extremely inarticulate. Ahmadinejad; Smooth talking, genocidal, anti-semite, crazed, lunatic who would exterminate everyone who's posted on this board for the simple fact that we play poker(gamble). I'll take the Texan who can't speak over the smooth-talking Catholic/Christian/Jew-Buster, thanks.

1. Bush is not a Texan, or even a cowboy. He went to friggin New England elitist prep school and then to Yale. Please don't assume things.2. There has been no genocide in Iran SINCE Ahmadinejad took office. To call him a genocidal person is a misnomer and simply factly inaccurate. Obviously he's crazy, but he hasn't committed any war crimes-- something that cannot be said of our own President.Clearly the world would be better if he wasn't in office, but don't make false statements that people might take as fact. (I am mainly a lurker, but I had to say something when someone was just so completely factually wrong on just about an entire statement)

[mtdesmoines 3]

1. Bush is not a Texan, or even a cowboy. He went to friggin New England elitist prep school and then to Yale. Please don't assume things.2. There has been no genocide in Iran SINCE Ahmadinejad took office. To call him a genocidal person is a misnomer and simply factly inaccurate. Obviously he's crazy, but he hasn't committed any war crimes-- something that cannot be said of our own President.Clearly the world would be better if he wasn't in office, but don't make false statements that people might take as fact. (I am mainly a lurker, but I had to say something when someone was just so completely factually wrong on just about an entire statement)

I just don't get it. With these attitudes, Western Civilization deserves to be exterminated.