Quote:
spookyfish
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Reagan’s appearance tonight just underscores one more resemblance between Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: They both had worthless children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, did you have a problem with his actual speech, or are you merely annoyed that he made the speech at the "other" party's convention?
I thought his speech was actually pretty good. He was positive, kept the issue relatively neutral politically, and respected the views of those who disagreed with him.
I was no great fan of his dad, but he did seem to inherit both his likeability as a person and his ability to communicate.
I would agree with respect to THK's speech. Very difficult to listen to and watch. Then again, that's not her forte. Knowing this, however, she shouldn't have gotten as much time as she did.
|
1) His actual speech was scientific bunk. It was disingenuous to a fault and perhaps gave false hope to thousands of families across the country with its suggestion that a cure was imminent, when the truth is that there is nothing of the sort.
2) The speech completely ignored the heart of the issue - namely, should the federal government be funding the harvesting of stem cells by destroying embryos? No one has a problem with funding research on existing cell lines. He never articulated the actual issue at hand.
3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.
