TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bushisms
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bushisms - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by jcat
I've wondered about that myself. In recent decades the U.S. media, after using "President So and So" at the beginning of any coverage, have generally referred to presidents using just their last names, i.e., "Carter", "Reagan", "Bush", "Clinton", whereas the British media generally prefixed "Mr" or "Mrs", e.g., "Mrs Thatcher", "Mr Major", or "Mr Blair". The British media seem to have adopted the American style lately. I was wondering if it was because journalists, etc., are for the most part baby boomers or the children of baby boomers.
Well, despite English being one of the most grammatically simplest of European languages, it is one of the most dynamic, and changing, so language evolves with time, and that's a good thing!
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
....and as such has a great deal of power and influence in the world. That in itself, again regardless of who holds the position, demands respect.

Does that make any sense?
Howdy, Heidi,

Oh dear, another rhetorical question. A rhetorical question has as its underlying assumption that there can be but one answer -- that the answer is a no-brainer. In this context such a question is an insult to the intelligence of a person having a different view -- such as me.

So, to answer your question, since it begs for an answer, "No, it does not make any sense whatsoever."

The mere fact that a person is elected (or otherwise gains) high office is not at all proof that he or she either merits or is entitled to "demand" respect. Only tyrants "demand" respect. In our country one "earns" respect.

Miss Kitty
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
We are beginning to get a feeling for what it takes to be a success in the GOP. And that, I assure you, is not a joke.
As opposed to what it takes to be a successful Democrat? Let's see, take your pick of Clinton, the adulterer, or Ted Kennedy, the murderer.
post #34 of 56
Actually, I thought such a question was called an "academic" question.
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Deb25
As opposed to what it takes to be a successful Democrat? Let's see, take your pick of Clinton, the adulterer, or Ted Kennedy, the murderer.
That was a matter of his private life, for him to solve out between him and Hillary. I don't care if he cannot keep his pants up in the Oval Office, as long as he makes a good government. Or what would you rather have? An adulterer, or someone who doesn't know the meaning of "imported"? I am not saying that having an affair while fooling your wife is a good thing (on the contrary its despicable), but that's of his private life.

Now, don't think I have him as St. Clinton, I think he handled the scandal in a moronic fashion, by lying under oath. Rule No. 1: Don't do such a thing unless you are sure you can get away with it.

What he should have done was make a "tear riddled confession", saying that it got out of hand and blame Monica for starting it and putting you through the affair, and that all through the affair, you felt the guilt of fooling Hillary, and say you are sorry. Then show a so called "forgiveness" of Hillary. It isn't perfect, but at least you don't get an inpeachment.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
Actually, I thought such a question was called an "academic" question.
Victor,

Actually the two expressions are often used interchangeably, but I was trained that "rhetorical" was the better.

E.g., if you "Ask Jeeves": "A rhetorical question implies that the answer is obvious--the kind of question that does not need actually to be answered. It is used for rhetorically persuading someone of a truth without argument, or to give emphasis to a supposed truth by stating its opposite ironically.

"Rhetorical question is often used for comic effect, as in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1 (1597) when Falstaff lies about fighting off eleven men single-handedly, then responds to the prince's doubts, "Art thou mad? Is not the truth the truth?"

"On the other hand, Iago uses rhetorical question for sinister ends, persuading Othello that his loving wife is a (bad girl). Iago hints with questions ("Honest, my lord?" "Is't possible, my lord?"), encouraging Othello to view his own unjustified suspicions as foregone conclusions."

Regards - we love to hear from you,

Miss Kitty, and all the rest
post #37 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Deb25
As opposed to what it takes to be a successful Democrat? Let's see, take your pick of Clinton, the adulterer, or Ted Kennedy, the murderer.
I know this is perverse (I should have been in bed two hours ago, if that's any excuse), but wouldn't it be great to have a nonpartisan Web site where everybody could list the most negative adjectives they can think of for any current or recently retired politicians or government appointees? There could be all sorts of threads for presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, dictators, foreign ministers, home secretaries, delegates,judges, governors, etc.., and forums for the various hemispheres or political systems. International organizations like the UN, WHO, OECD, ASEAN, etc., shouldn't be neglected, either. I wonder what the spin doctors and lobbyists would make of that?
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
Howdy, Heidi,

Oh dear, another rhetorical question. A rhetorical question has as its underlying assumption that there can be but one answer -- that the answer is a no-brainer. In this context such a question is an insult to the intelligence of a person having a different view -- such as me.

So, to answer your question, since it begs for an answer, "No, it does not make any sense whatsoever."

The mere fact that a person is elected (or otherwise gains) high office is not at all proof that he or she either merits or is entitled to "demand" respect. Only tyrants "demand" respect. In our country one "earns" respect.

Miss Kitty
And once again, your sheer hatred of the man clouds your ability to see the point of a post by someone who doesn't share the same viewpoint. The position demands respect, not the person. A respect that you obviously have none of. So, in that sense I can see where the answer to the question to you would be that it makes no sense.

Since the conversation has turned to Clinton and his scandals in the White House, the impeachement wasn't about whether or not he could keep it in his pants. He couldn't we all know that. It was about perjury, defined as "The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath." Which he did. That is illegal, which as a lawyer he would have been well aware of. Somehow the Dems only want us to remember the affair, but the issue was whether he lied under oath to a Grand Jury. In order to ascertain that, the affair had to be proven or disproven which is why it was investigated.

On the topic at hand, I have no respect for Clinton the man. He's a liar and a cheat and a coward, IMHO. Not exactly the qualities I want in a man who serves as President. However, even when he was in Office, I still respected the position. And I could see through my objects to him as a person to some of the decent things he did in office, which again is lacking in the attitudes toward Bush that I am hearing.

Jcat, I think that would be a fantastic forum/website!
post #39 of 56
Heidi, may I say something: Let's avoid calling someone blinded by his views. Because any person who hates Bush has got a reason for hating him.

Also, I don't think Clinton did a good thing, but at least he did a much better overall job in office than Bush. And, most people who critize him, try to bash the adulterer thing, not the lying under oath.

Also, I want to ask a question: Were you to find yourself with such a situation of having to say yes or no to having commited adultery, would you say yes? I don't know about you, but my loyalty to the law ends where my neck starts. So, in truth I am afraid that if I condemned what he did there, I would be a hypocrite.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
Can't we see that in order to be the chief of state of the world's lone superpower cannot be an anybody? He has got to be an intelectual, a master in the art of politics (yes, down here we consider it an art.) well learned, readed, cultured he needs to master his mother language, tactful, the list goes on.

I for on ewould rather have someone who understands the desires of the common man. Bush has that. He has the Common Sense look at the world. He may not pronounce words in "propeer" english but he at least shows that he is human to Just like Vice Pres Dan Quayle. Just because a person misspeaks doesn't mean that they are UNINTELLIGENT. Heck I for one know that I mis speak on a regular basis but according to my IQ I am above average Intelligence. I can totaly understand that all those factors listed by Yoviher do play a factor in the outlook of a leader, But it's got more to do with how he is seen by his people, and as I stated above I would much rather have someone who understands the common person. To me that is what makes a GREAT leader.
post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by tuxedokitties
The day we fear criticizing our leaders in America is indeed a day to fear, for this will no longer be America.
So very true!!!
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
That was a matter of his private life, for him to solve out between him and Hillary. I don't care if he cannot keep his pants up in the Oval Office, as long as he makes a good government.

I personally feel that if it were done at someother point in time other then when he was the leader of our country it wouldn't have been as bad and it would have been kept as a personal matter but the fact that he choose to perform these acts in the house that rreprestents the WHOLE USA. My house, My Friends House, MY felow American's house. He defiled ME. He Tarnished the wonderful effect of looking at America's House. That is IMO why it was so very pulicised. He disrespected America. I knnow in the ast there has been many Aadultery storied about presidents but I for one wans't around during those times so the effect on Me personally was little to none. But Clinton's Happened in the time period of my Politcal waking up so to speak. I was just sstarting to pay attention to my Country's politics. So the impact of Clinton really took a toll on my thoughts and feelings toward him and his Cabinet.
post #43 of 56
Sorry Victor, but it is my belief that the country's leader should be a role model, among other things, which loosely translates to: as long as I, the taxpayer, am paying his salary, he needs to keep his pants up in the Oval Office. If I, a low-paid educator, can be held to a higher moral standard, so can the President of the United States of America.
post #44 of 56
It really doesn't matter who the president is, he is always going to be critcized especially in modern times when news reaches us almost instantly due to the internet, C-Span, live TV coverage and etc. The original subject of this thread, which is Bushisms is humorous, and is not meant to be taken so seriously.

And now back to the original subject...
post #45 of 56
Well said, Lorie!
post #46 of 56
I think the quotes are funny.

And I think it makes Bush to seem more human - that no one is perfect and neither is Bush. Granted, I am not a fan of Bush but I think there is nothing wrong with his mistakes. It makes him more interesting.

On the other hand, perhaps it is the pressure of millions of people watching him and criticising his every move that could make him nervous and flub his lines every so often. I have done that on many an occasion and I am sure that all of you have.

post #47 of 56
Thread Starter 
How true, Kellye. And another thing to keep in mind. To many people, Clinton was much too "glib" (anyone for a round of lawyer bashing?), and Gore was generally described either as "wooden" or "wonkish". A guy I went to college with was later an intern in Gore's senatorial office, and his description of Gore as "one of the funniest people you'd ever want to meet" just didn't jive with Gore's stiffness in public. And many of you will remember the jokes about Reagan and his teleprompter, or Carter's equating a man's appreciation of a woman's physical attributes with adultery. I think it best not to get into Quayle's utterances, though.
post #48 of 56
No matter what party I'm affiliated with, I will definitely agree with you about Quayle. He was a couple sandwiches short of a picnic, IMO. (So much for party lines, huh? ) I was ashamed when the GOP put him up as the best candidate.

Although, at least he didn't take credit for inventing the internet.
post #49 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by valanhb
No matter what party I'm affiliated with, I will definitely agree with you about Quayle. He was a couple sandwiches short of a picnic, IMO. (So much for party lines, huh? ) I was ashamed when the GOP put him up as the best candidate.

Although, at least he didn't take credit for inventing the internet.
LOL. Heidi, while I was living in the U.S. and eligible to vote, I was registered as a Republican. I don't like "partisan politics", though, and quite frankly, I don't see much (enough?) difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. It's the party radicals I worry about. I seriously think that one of the main reasons Bush Sr. wasn't re-elected was Quayle. I also don't like many of Bush's appointees, in particular Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (their world views seem hopelessly antiquated). I question whether Cheney is in charge or Bush. My mom can't stand Bush, and once we were discussing the fact that he was the only president in recent memory whom nobody, as far as the public knows, has tried to assassinate. My reaction was that the vast majority of people would have to prefer Bush to Cheney. It's not just U.S. politics that make me suspicious - where I live, you don't only have to worry about national(German) politics, but also those of the European Union. Who has the actual power? Huge corporations? Why does Bush have such a huge "war chest", and why has Kerry gotten so much money from lobbyists? The whole election process has somehow become quagmired, worthy of suspicion. At the moment, I'm in the "Anybody But Bush" camp, because I object to his failure to accept the Kyoto Protocol, the budget deficit (what happened to the "Contract With America"?), his failure to find enough funding for the "Leave No Child Behind" project, not to mention the attempt of the DOJ to obtain confidential medical files from university clinics, the curtailment of civil rights inherent in the "Patriot Act", and the failure to deal with the situations in Afghanistan and North Korea because of our invasion of Iraq (what happened to the WMDs?). Why is the incumbent unchallenged? Isn't anybody in the GOP willing to take him on? For me, the situation is such: support the Democratic candidate, no matter what your personal opinion of him is, or stand by and watch Bush's election, although there are Republican (or Democratic/Independent) politicians who would probably do a far better job. You expressed the opinion that one should have respect for the president's office, and I countered with Hitler having been democratically elected. I can give a much better example. I was raised a Catholic, and attended a parochial high school and a Jesuit university. There have been so many scandals involving sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests that I have to question the "respect" ingrained in parochial school pupils for "men of God". These men are/were officeholders. How many kids never dared to blow the whistle on them because of the respect the Catholic community had for them just because they were ordained priests? The older I get, the less faith I have in the "people's representatives".
post #50 of 56
I believe that it's the custom that the incumbent President is usually unchallenged by the party, if he is eligible for another term. Either party would lose a lot of ground if it didn't support the current office holder.
post #51 of 56
Jcat,

I hope you don't mind my asking, and feel free to not answer if this is too personal...

I don't understand why you can't vote. When I lived in Germany I always voted by absentee ballot as did all of my American friends. Can't you do this as well?

Renae
post #52 of 56
absentee ballot is allowed for US citizens only when they are doing things like studying or in the army or such which is the reason for their being there.

When the person is residing permanently by her own will (As Jcat) she cannot vote.
post #53 of 56
Thread Starter 
Victor's answer is correct. I've been here almost half my life as a private individual, and no longer have a permanent U.S. address. So my home state can't issue absentee ballots for me. It makes sense for local elections, but it would be nice to be able to vote in Presidential elections. (I guess - I generally don't like most of the candidates).
post #54 of 56
Jcat, most Latin American countries provide that for their nationals abroad. I have even heard on the radio ads of the Government of the Dominican Republic exhorting for their nationals living in PR to come and vote for President and Vice President on the consulate.

I think the US ought to do that. They are all Americans, regardless of where they live, and should have the right to elect who will govern their country.

They can assign some electoral votes to the 6 million Americans abroad. Each party have its overseas division to reach the voters abroad, and when election day comes all American citizens abroad registered to vote, and over 18, can come to the nearest consulate or embassy to vote.

Simple, huh? What do you think of this idea?
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher

I think the US ought to do that. They are all Americans, regardless of where they live, and should have the right to elect who will govern their country.
Victor,

Please do not assume that this is an evil of our nation at large. In an earlier thread jcat candidly and intelligently discussed with us the law and regulations of her home state, possibly after receiving legal advice, which, superficially at least, claim her to be ineligible to register to vote. Not the United States -- just her home state.

When this subject came up earlier in another thread I attempted to contact jcat privately, only to discover that she has chosen, as is her privilege, to not receive private emails from list subscribers. I made this effort because I felt that she may be the victim of unconstitutional discrimination. It would not be appropriate to discuss in public the legal principles which may apply here, but I will be happy to discuss this with her privately via email if she wishes. If she wishes she will be able to communicate with me privately through my profile on this web site.

I of course may not provide her with legal advice through that medium, but I can possibly acquaint her with some legal principles with which she may be unfamiliar, the most important being that just because a state says a rule is a rule does not in and of itself make that rule constitutional.

Speaking of profiles, Victor, I have viewed yours with both pleasure and surprise, having some difficulty reconciling your age with your wisdom, knowledge and your being so well-spoken, particularly since English may not be your native tongue (??). I have not met many young men or women of your age who might be your match.

All the best to all,

Jim -- a frequent visitor to "Rosey Roads" (sp?) in a prior life, Victor
post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown

Speaking of profiles, Victor, I have viewed yours with both pleasure and surprise, having some difficulty reconciling your age with your wisdom, knowledge and your being so well-spoken, particularly since English may not be your native tongue (??). I have not met many young men or women of your age who might be your match.

All the best to all,
Thanks. You ain't the first person to say that about me. Before I entered school my mother taught me to read and write Spanish and basic first grade arithmethic before I was five.

When I was six, since there was no school in Puerto Rico that would not waste an entire year trying to teach me the things I already knew, (read, write, add and subtract) I was entered into a correspondence home school from the states, whose curriculum was made specially for the so called "gifted" students. Since the entirety of the curriculum was in English, and most of the channels we get by cable were in English, I learned it very quickly.

Since then, I am now on a similar High School, and I am the secretary of juvenile affairs of the Astronomy Society of PR and written numerous articles for their Spanish language magazine. I am currently trying to become a member of MENSA, an international club, whose members score on the top two percent of the intelligence scale.

Now, sorry if I sound like boasting, but that's my life story. And I haven't yet found a teen that matches me, but I try not to let that go to my head if you understand what I mean
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bushisms