The best speaker in history.
- Thread starter LightSpectra
- Start date
G
Gainy
Guest
Homer 4sure
demokratickid
King
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 753
I think he wouldn't come close to FDR or Hitler... After all, he was blind, illiterate, and wrote about the Trojan war 500 years after it happened!
I believe that Huey Long, as was mentioned before, was a powerful speaker, but definately not the 'greatist.' That would have to go to Hitler, MLK, Cicero, or FDR. Although Churchill's, 'blood, sweat and tears' speech gets an honorable mention from me.
G
Gainy
Guest
You must be American surely ? 
Stolen Rutters
Deity
Best speaker in American history? Cicero makes the list 
, but I'll go with Lincoln or MLKJ.
, but I'll go with Lincoln or MLKJ.I really don't think MLKJ, Lincoln, or Hitler etc. was a better speaker than say, Muhammad Ali. Just an observatoin... think about it. I mean yeah, Hitler can get up there an make a bunch of ridiculous gestures, holler and pretend he's in some stinkin' Broadway play, but what is the man actually saying? A bunch of stupid crap. Read the transcripts.
And yeah, Churchill can step up to the podium and baffle us with excessive wordage (e.g, "I do indeed as ever so impressively refer to the right honorable gentleman which doest in thine finest hour serve the common good and glory of mankind which shall riseth above the....."
BLAH BLAH BLAH... this isn't Shakespeare. -Which isn't so stinkin' great anyway.
And sure, Lincoln can impress us with heartfelt phrases, impressive vocabulary, and outstanding sentence structure. That's all fantastic. Granted he's mostly READING from something which he carefully prepared just as any half-decent intelligent mind would be capable of producing.
Plus, MLKJ can stand up there, and blow smoke up all our @sses, sound like a preacher on Sunday (AMEN!!) and talk about the righteous promised land, and oh, how we must keep our eyes on the prize. Well @#$%, all I have to say is bring Sally up, and bring Sally down... or however that song by Moby goes (intro to Gone in 60 Seconds).
What a bunch of silliness. A real speaker has charisma, and speaks the truth in a candid way which all the people can relate to and be inspired by. All it takes, is honesty and confidence. Not a bunch of political 'baffle you with BS'.
"Hey look, I manipulated my way into an Anschluss w/ Austria... I must be the greatest speaker!" Man, the German people wanted revenge. It wasn't that Hitler made it all happen.
And yeah, Churchill can step up to the podium and baffle us with excessive wordage (e.g, "I do indeed as ever so impressively refer to the right honorable gentleman which doest in thine finest hour serve the common good and glory of mankind which shall riseth above the....."
BLAH BLAH BLAH... this isn't Shakespeare. -Which isn't so stinkin' great anyway.
And sure, Lincoln can impress us with heartfelt phrases, impressive vocabulary, and outstanding sentence structure. That's all fantastic. Granted he's mostly READING from something which he carefully prepared just as any half-decent intelligent mind would be capable of producing.
Plus, MLKJ can stand up there, and blow smoke up all our @sses, sound like a preacher on Sunday (AMEN!!) and talk about the righteous promised land, and oh, how we must keep our eyes on the prize. Well @#$%, all I have to say is bring Sally up, and bring Sally down... or however that song by Moby goes (intro to Gone in 60 Seconds).
What a bunch of silliness. A real speaker has charisma, and speaks the truth in a candid way which all the people can relate to and be inspired by. All it takes, is honesty and confidence. Not a bunch of political 'baffle you with BS'.
"Hey look, I manipulated my way into an Anschluss w/ Austria... I must be the greatest speaker!" Man, the German people wanted revenge. It wasn't that Hitler made it all happen.
fugazi
King
Cicero. Talking about real matters instead of talking about supernatural what if's.
demokratickid
King
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 753
You caught me
After weighing the decision for several weeks, I would revise my previous statement and would like to say that:
1) For content: it goes to Cicero
2) For emotion: it goes to Hitler
3) For lasting impact: ??? That's for you to decide!
I'm still trying to understand Lotus49. Hitler wasn't a good speaker because his content wasn't good enough. Churchill wasn't good because he can't understand him. Lincoln wasn't good because he didn't make it up on the hoof. King wasn't good because - er - what? So who exactly was a good speaker?
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
The funny thing about Lincoln and his speeches is that we view them now in a much different way than he and his contemporaries did.
His 2nd Innaugral by all accounts wasn't very well received because at a time when it was finally clear to everyone that the South was finished very few wanted to hear about how they should treat the South lightly, and no-one wanted to hear how the war was the fault of both sides. Typically speeches during this period were protracted affairs, often lasting several hours. In contrast arguably his most famous speach, the Gettysburg Address lasted around 2 minutes. Despite this it is much more famous than Everett's who spoke before him for 2 hours or any number of longer speeches that Davis made during the war.
Frankly although spontaneity could be considered important to a good speaker I don't much care either way. Lincoln usually said the right things at the right times, even when they would prove unpopular. Whether drafted weeks beforehand or made up on the spot the mark of a good speech to me is that it sticks in the minds of the people who hear it, and somehow embodies the subject or period. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address if you ask me did both perfectly, and whether he wrote it on the back of an envelope on the train (as the enduring but totally wrong myth goes) or drafted it beforehand is an irrelevance.
His 2nd Innaugral by all accounts wasn't very well received because at a time when it was finally clear to everyone that the South was finished very few wanted to hear about how they should treat the South lightly, and no-one wanted to hear how the war was the fault of both sides. Typically speeches during this period were protracted affairs, often lasting several hours. In contrast arguably his most famous speach, the Gettysburg Address lasted around 2 minutes. Despite this it is much more famous than Everett's who spoke before him for 2 hours or any number of longer speeches that Davis made during the war.
Frankly although spontaneity could be considered important to a good speaker I don't much care either way. Lincoln usually said the right things at the right times, even when they would prove unpopular. Whether drafted weeks beforehand or made up on the spot the mark of a good speech to me is that it sticks in the minds of the people who hear it, and somehow embodies the subject or period. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address if you ask me did both perfectly, and whether he wrote it on the back of an envelope on the train (as the enduring but totally wrong myth goes) or drafted it beforehand is an irrelevance.
Damnyankee
Honest Abe
I think that the categories have to be divided up for the best speaker in history. Because many speakers are good in one area, then horrible in another. Take Hitler, a powerful orator, he could make anyone believe him. However, the content of his speeches left something to be desired. Lincoln had great speeches, but nobody around today has heard him...
PredatorFett
steam user
Simple. Jesus Christ. Definitely the most influential.
demokratickid
King
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 753
I thank Damnyankee for supporting my implied idea. Catergories is the only way to solve this conundrum!
Similar threads
