's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Is it just me, or is anyone else troubled...(55 posts)

Is it just me, or is anyone else troubled...mdehner
Aug 13, 2003 12:57 PM
by the fact that we (in the US) are facing four more years of a prez whose grammar and logic are regularly ridiculed by schoolchildren everywhere?

Correcting W has become an amusing hobby for my 11 year-old daughter.
Are you serious?TJeanloz
Aug 13, 2003 1:07 PM
You have 3 years of policy to discuss and argue were complete failures, and you're still harping on the fact that he can't speak eloquently?

This is what is wrong with American politics. At least call him a liar or something...
Maybe ridiculing his speech is the nicest thing one can say.czardonic
Aug 13, 2003 1:40 PM
But, even I am getting weary of making fun of him.

It simply does Bush the favor of drawing attention from his atrocious policies, and conveys the message that the only thing his detractors have to criticize is his mush-mouthed delivery.

It's right up there with the "Clinton lied to the American People" line of political argument. True, but irrelevant.
Completely serious.mdehner
Aug 13, 2003 2:01 PM
Seems to me a somewhat unique developement to have a prez who comes across as really, well, dumb. Leaving aside whether he actually is as daffy as he often appears, I think it's interesting to ponder how he has demeaned the institution of the presidency, wholly aside from his substantive policies, and decisions, simply by coming across as such a simpleton.
"Demeaned the institution of the Presidency?"TJeanloz
Aug 13, 2003 2:13 PM
I'm biting my tongue, because I can't believe that you're serious.

(1) The "institution of the Presidency" isn't some Divine power, it's an elected office.

(2) If the best man for the job were, say, a mute, would you not elect him because it would "demean the institution"?

Calvin Coolidge was practically a mute, Taft was dangerously obese, Jackson was a redneck, Roosevelt was crippled. If all we care about how President's "come across", wouldn't it just be easier to elect Kevin Costner or something?

What you're critically forgetting is that Mr. Bush, for better or worse, speaks like a lot of Americans. Americans who don't live in big cities, and aren't pompous asses about needing people who "look the part" to lead them. I am embarrassed for you that you are judging a man, who you have reasonable policy data about, on the basis of his appearances.
Tongue-Biting Revisitedmdehner
Aug 13, 2003 3:11 PM
Do you really equate obesity and physical disability to W's recurring buffoonery? That strikes me as curious.

Most American presidents I can remember, loved or despised, were minimally capable of stringing-together an intelligible sentence. Hey, there is even a readily recognized name for how his mangled thoughts are expressed (I don't remember vast collections of Reaganisms, Carterisms, or Clintonisms).

Please don't assume that I think W's goofiness provides the sole or even primary basis for criticism. His policies and actions continually provide ample fodder for a more substantive and important critique. In addition to his other flaws, I simply find it embarrassing, uncomfortable, and weird to have an elected (NOT!) leader incapable of forming and communicating a clear, logical thought. And I hope it does not seem elitist, but W certainly does not talk like most people with whom I interact.

But thanks for reminding me that image is not a factor in American politics.
Yeah, you sound elitist,TJeanloz
Aug 13, 2003 3:32 PM
Most people in my historical neck of the woods are more inclined to vote for somebody they respect, who sounds more like them, than they are to vote for John Kerry. Remember, Clinton was "slick Willie", in part because of his way with words. You do realize that Al Gore lost a lot of votes for sounding pompous and condescending, right? That elitist attitude doesn't play well in small communities, and GWB can pretty much write off winning in New York and California anyway.

However, to my original point, we have a slew of policy to critique, but the best you can do is point out that he's not eloquent? That's like a conservative who can't get past Bill Clinton's blow jobs. It's also not like this is a new issue - people knew he didn't speak well, and he was still elected; and that was before he had on-the-job experience.
I see your point...mdehner
Aug 13, 2003 3:41 PM
and it's well-taken, but I don't think you see mine. Cheers.
I don't see how voting for someone who sounds like you. . .czardonic
Aug 13, 2003 4:15 PM
. . .is any less superficial a way of judging their competence. That strikes me as equally elitist, but without any rational basis. I think voting for a person because he seems intelligent is more defensible than voting for a them because they seem familiar.
Could Lincoln get elected today?Spoke Wrench
Aug 13, 2003 6:21 PM
Take a good look at a new $5.00 bill. There's no polite way to say it, that man was ugly! But, he was strongly ethical. I'll vote for the ugly, ethical guy.
You forget heighth.Sintesi
Aug 13, 2003 6:41 PM
Heightism is a strong bias. If you are over 6' you are often deemed smarter, stronger and more serious than say Marv Albert.

6' 4" is basically a doctorate by political reckoning.
How has Bush "demeaned the institution of the presidency"?Live Steam
Aug 13, 2003 5:40 PM
I am sure you would much rather have a slick-tongued prez like Clinton who couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. He brought oodles of dignity to the office - that is when his pants were zippered and when he wasn't lying in court.

This is typical Dumocrat BS. They are sore losers and only too happy to slander their adversaries. It's fine with me. Keep it up. The House, Senate and Oval Office will become even more Republican. People are getting tired of this BS.
Yes. People <i>are</i> getting tired of this BS.czardonic
Aug 13, 2003 5:42 PM
Can I assume that you didn't read the rest of this topic, given your knee-jerk resort to Clinton bashing?
Read it all. Was there something else ...Live Steam
Aug 13, 2003 6:02 PM
that I missed here? The thread is made up of posts from a few small minded people deriding Bush because they don't appreciate his public speaking skills. Maybe they would rather vote for smooth talking car salesman the next time around. Come to think of it, they did in the prior two elections.
agreeDuane Gran
Aug 14, 2003 4:55 AM
Although I am generally a supporter of the president's policies (Iraq war and tax cut withstanding) I am often unhappy with how he carries himself when he speaks without a script. I have listened to Tony Blair on many an occasion and each time I'm impressed, even if I don't agree with him. I wish I could the same for Bush.

I might add that just because he speaks like most Americans doesn't make it better or right. It is entirely reasonable to hold a politician to a higher level of accountability.
after Nixon & Reagan, impossible to demean the institution...nmbicyclerepairman
Aug 14, 2003 3:27 PM
His grammar is fine, he commits malapropismsSpoiler
Aug 13, 2003 3:53 PM
Kind of like Archie Bunker, but not so severe. The best example I ever heard was Andrew Dice Clay calling a transexual a trans-testicle.
His grammar <i>and</i> his diction are bad. (nm)czardonic
Aug 13, 2003 4:08 PM
Nucular! (nm)Lon Norder
Aug 13, 2003 4:49 PM
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"mdehner
Aug 13, 2003 4:10 PM
-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000.

I agree, though, that W's grammar is not as consistently horrible as is his thought process.
Post the source for that quote please nmLive Steam
Aug 13, 2003 5:41 PM
Aug 13, 2003 5:47 PM
Well that's certainly an ...Live Steam
Aug 13, 2003 5:55 PM
unimpeachable source - NOT!!!!!!!!!! The poem was constructed from words and phrases, spoken by GW, but they are taken out of context by the author of that web site. Please go to the White House archives and show me where and when he made that statement.
C'mon Live SteamSintesi
Aug 13, 2003 6:37 PM
Are you saying this guy doesn't say ANY of this stuff? I've listened to the guy on many occasions and none of these examples seem beyond the realm of possibility IMHO.

Regardless (or should I say irregardless?), any one of us with a team of salivating morons writing down every stupid thing any of has said in the past for posterity will find many similar elocutions and curious turns of phrase. In most regards, what Bush MEANT comes across when listened to in context as opposed to a vacuum tube of pedantic sh*ts and giggles filtering. This is merely fun and games. Oh, and yawn.

I will note. Immediately after 9/11 I do recall wishing Tony Blair voiced the opinions of the American people far more than "smoke the evil doers out of their holes" Bush. Tony gives a brilliant extemporaneous speech. Or prepared speech for that matter. Bush unequivocally lacks in this department.

This is a little embarrassing but I agree it does not reflect basic absence of intelligence or an inability to make an adequate or reasonable decision on GWB's part.
Irregardless of that ...Live Steam
Aug 13, 2003 7:28 PM
It should be included in the New American Dictionary. I would be willing to bet that a good portion of the population believes it to be a word, so why not make it one :O)

I know some of it is good natured, but a lot of it is mean spirited. This type of attack has been foisted by the left, upon each and every Republican president for the last 30 years. I think it's a reprehensible tactic.

Actually I am surprised at the time frame you chose to cite. Bush was probably never better from the podium, than soon after 9/11. His speeches won raves from practically everyone. I believe he was so comfortable because he was speaking from the heart.

I admit to wincing every once in a while when hearing him just as I did when hearing his father, but the gift of gab does not make a great president.
If you can't spell "potato" people are going to snicker (nm)Spoke Wrench
Aug 13, 2003 10:45 PM
Irregardless of that ...Sintesi
Aug 14, 2003 3:17 AM
Actually you're right about the 9/11 speech to congress. That was a brilliant, moving speech.
Bush has been blessed with terrific speechwriters.OldEdScott
Aug 14, 2003 4:45 AM
I say that with genuine admiration, as a fellow practitioner of the trade. His prepared speeches, as text, have been first-rate.
though his impromptu speeches have been not so good (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 14, 2003 7:43 AM
Actions speak louder than wordsSteveS
Aug 14, 2003 8:07 AM
Clinton spoke very nicely, he said that he "obsessed about Osama Bin Laden," typically and quite obviously another example of his lifetime of lies. What were his actions? Basically nothing in this regard, as is well noted from varied sources.

But he enunciated very nicely. What were his actions? Pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists in New York in time for his wife's senatorial campaign, at the same time Clinton (Slick Willy)claimed the Puerto Ricans had renounced violence. (they hadn't)

Actions speak louder than words.

Clinton said words very nicely and had nice hair dos.
troll nmOldEdScott
Aug 14, 2003 8:21 AM
Same with Reagan. Effective speaker. Horrible leader. (nm)czardonic
Aug 14, 2003 9:59 AM
shoots from the lip, quoting the Know-Nothing partySteveS
Aug 14, 2003 10:21 AM
Except of course, Reagan ended:
1. The threat of Communism (MJ's favorite system)by driving them broke.
2. A threat to U.S. students in Grenada that killed 28 people in the days prior to his intervention.
3. Scared Gaddaffi's butt out of terrorism (offically); they just admitted culpability to the bombing of Pan Am 109 a day or so ago.
4. Engingeered the freeing of Bishop Waite and Terry Anderson who had been held hostage by Muslim terrorists during most of Carter's (Democrat) administration.
5. Solved the Iranian hostage crises, freeing American embassy personnel captured and held hostage during the entire Carter (Democrat)adminstration.
6. Reduced the double digit interest rates run up during the inflation of Carter's administration.
7. Cured the 'malaise' in America created during the Carter (Democrat) administration.

Really, you should do yourself a favor and know something before you pop-off. (I do doubt however that knowledge will cure what appears to be a classic case of true 'knee-jerk' reactionism.)
Of the points you list that are actally true. . .czardonic
Aug 14, 2003 10:34 AM
. . .(some of them are arguable) none eclipse the harms that he did, IMO.

Please remeber that he also armed Al Queda, and sponsored several brutal, undemocratic revolutions. Also, if he cured the malaise and high interest rates of the Carter Administration, he hardly delivered use to stable social or financial ground.

Reagan made some bold moves that one can legitimately love or hate on their merits.
Your ignorance must indeed be bliss..SteveS
Aug 14, 2003 11:15 AM
Immediate gratification to my claim of your knee-jerk responses is more than I could hope for. Really guy, for someone who pops-off as much as you do, you really don't know what you are talking about. You merely type some leftist's response to make you feel good. And the really fun part is you do it over and over again. I love it.

Prove your claim.

You can't because Osama bin Laden is funded with Saudi petro-dollars, millions even hundreds of millions because, as is very clear, the Saudis are free to sell to whomever they want and distribute their ill-gotten gains for world misadventures. In any real since, the oil of Saudi Arabia funds world terrorism. This in itself is proof of something that you will no doubt miss.

No, Reagan never armed Al-Qaeda and was out of office before Osama even got in high gear.

Ooops, once more I have had to slap you upside your head. Get your facts right, if not opinions.
That's funny because you seem to be the one in ecstacy.czardonic
Aug 14, 2003 11:37 AM
Whereas I find debating someone who is simply incapable of overcoming the chip on his shoulder and dialing back the a$$hole factor to be increasingly tiresome.

So Osama was not yet in "high gear". I guess you consider that a meaningful distinction.
That's funnySteveS
Aug 15, 2003 7:19 AM
Twirp, here is reality,you can't 'debate.' You get caught over and over again not having a clue as to the reality or truth of your wild statements, in this case your childish claim that "Reagan armed bin Laden." Not.

It appears that you can't control an impulse to make a comment, any comment, that follows your thought or fantasy pattern. Either you are a conservative plant to make leftists look ignorantly stupid, very young and ignorant, or have a problem other than what used to be called "diarrhea of the mouth."

In terms of chips on the shoulder, it is your practice to make non-stop, virtually daily, negative posts. Its your thing. In my case, I normally only respond to what I consider stupid comments. Don't try to 'debate' if you don't have points you can back up. Obviously, you can't back up your claim on Reagan and Bin Laden, that is obviously...simply because it wasn't true.
reagan did arm bin laden. and trained him toorufus
Aug 15, 2003 9:18 AM
at the time the soviets invaded afghanistan, bin laden left saudi arabia to fight with other muslims against the soviets. the US, under reagan, provided equipment, training, and monetary support to those rebels, because, after all, they were opposing the communists. when the soviet invasion ultimately failed, those afghani rebels developed into the roots of al qaeda and the taliban.
And now they are financed by the Bush family's old friends. . .czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 9:28 AM
. . .in Saudi Arabia.
"Please remeber that he also armed Al Queda"SteveS
Aug 15, 2003 12:50 PM
The U.S. did indeed supply arms to anti-Communist forces in a variety of locations. However, Czardonic's statement was concerning Reagan.."Please remember that he also armed Al Queda" which is also not true. Just another one of C's pop-off comments.
Don't ad-lib.czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 1:13 PM
Those anti-Communist forces you euphemistically refer to were Al-Quada, and with the help of the Reagan and Bush Adminstrations they delivered Afghanistan from the godless Communists to the conservative, god-fearing Taliban. Your spittle flecked rants dona't refute any of this (though to be fair they haven't really tried too).

Rather than "poping-off" about what a low character I am, you'd do better to stick to the script: Tough world out there that you pansy liberals will never be able to deal with. . .had to make some unsavory bed-fellows to defeat the Communist Menace. . .Clinton lied to the American People. . . .blah, blah, blah.
Ooops, upside the head again...SteveS
Aug 15, 2003 6:56 PM
I don't think that I ever said you are a "low character", you either ignorant, immature and ignorant, or have diaherrea of the mouth and I've had to verbally kick your butt numerous times. Here's one more:

"Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda Organization

Osama bin Laden is a 44 year-old "businessman" and son of one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families, and the coordinator of an international terrorist network believed to be responsible for numerous deadly attacks against American and Western targets.

Bin Laden formed the terrorist Al-Qaeda ("the base") organization in 1988, and it is believed to have operatives in as many as twenty countries. In 1998 bin Laden announced the establishment of "The International Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews and Crusaders," an umbrella organization linking Islamic extremists in scores of countries around the world, including Egypt, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The group issued a religious edict upon its establishment: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians, and the military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque from their grip and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated, and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty G-d, and 'fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in G-d."

His militancy is traced back to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden's avowed goal from that time is to remove Western "infidels" from Muslim countries - the Russians from Afghanistan, the American military from Saudi Arabia and other points in the Gulf - the downfall of many government of Muslim states, and for the destruction of the United States and its allies."

This is from the Anti-Defamation League's website, but you will notice "Al-Quada" was not formed until 1988. Once again,you are wrong. However, I will give you an A for consistantcy. Twirp.
new name and organizational structurerufus
Aug 16, 2003 6:30 AM
for the same group of rebels that fought against the soviets, and that we armed, trained, and supported financially. when did the soviets finally pull out of afghanistan anyway? 1988 wasn't that much later. against the soviets, they were afghani rebels. once the soviet threat was repelled, this group of rebels took a new name and mission directive.
along the same line of thinkingSteveS
Aug 16, 2003 8:58 AM
His parents supported him, Harvard and Michigan universities trained him, California-Berkley armed him psychologically and the honor student becomes the Unabomber. Using the line of thinking above, then the family of Ted Kaczynski, Harvard, Michigan U. and California-Berkley are responsible ultimately the the people that leftist Ted killed or wouned,he just took a new name (Unabomber) and a new mission directive.

Most reasonable people might agree that he was certainly trained and supported financially by schools and family but would fall quite short of agreeing that they in essence created the Unabomber. (actually, Berkley was/is probably more culpable from a psychological/ideological perspective; maybe there is a law suit there for some of his victims) However, since even the late, great Miss Cleo can't really tell anyone what any of us will do with our education, support and training, most reasonable people would agree that Ted Kaczynski's terrorism was ultimately a result of his own choices and psychology.

Czardonic was wrong once again, Reagan never armed Al Qaida, his administration supported anti-Communist rebels fighting the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. Bin Laden's terrorism was ultimately a result of his own choices and psychology.
all you're doing is arguing semantics.rufus
Aug 16, 2003 3:35 PM
the anti-communist rebels were al qaeda in all but name. they just had a more pressing obstacle at the time, before they could turn their sights solely to the US.

and i didn't see harvard, michigan, or his family handing the unabomber a bomb, or the materials and an instruction manual, and then teaching him what to do with them.
see what you want to seeSteveS
Aug 16, 2003 7:18 PM
With a personal wealth of $300 million dollars and a culture of shooting, much less throat slitting, in the middle east, Osama had plenty of experience before the U.S. provided aid to the Afghanistanis, the principal weapon helping them being the Stinger missile. Show me the U.S. teaching any other skills when he was an avowed and stated planner of terroristic killings of Americans or westerners. Your statement shows that you can 'see' this having happened.

The reason why you or your like-thinkers can't provide so is that it wasn't done as such.

None are so blind as those who won't see.

Education and philosophy were developed by the Unabomber through his life experiences in those areas mentioned. These skills allowed him to make bombs and the intellectual moulding to do so. There will be however, the same degree of on-hands proof of his being taught how to be a terrorist as there exists of Reagan training Al-Qaida to be terrorists. None.

It is amazing that you seem to have known that the Afghan freedom fighters were Al-Qaida prior to Al-Qaida's formation 15 years ago. With that fore-knowledge you have outstripped Miss Cleo. Why didn't you inform the world and it's security services of this situation if you knew it?

Of course, if this is the hind-sight armed chair quarterbacking, then this postulation is worth less than nothing, isn't it?
no they weren't al-qaeda.rufus
Aug 18, 2003 6:20 AM
they went on to form the beginnings of al-qaeda, putting the training in weapons and tactics to use in a new war effort.

you take me to task by saying i can't establish beyond a doubt that they got this training there. you can't prove they didn't. again, all you're doing is nitpicking on semantics, and using the fact that they weren't called al-qaeda at the time as some kind of proof that they weren't the very same people who went on to become al qaeda. or that we weren't responsible for arming and training them in the use of those arms. it certainly wasn't the russians or the israelis.
Here is your source.czardonic
Aug 14, 2003 10:00 AM
The President acknowledges many of his malapropisms and gets big laughs with his tounge-in-cheek spin on them:
Thanks. You have to respect someone that ....Live Steam
Aug 15, 2003 5:14 PM
doesn't take themself too sreiously and can laugh at their own mistakes instead of getting defensive about them. It takes a big person in my opinion.
Yep. I'll give him that. (nm)czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 5:31 PM
I'm troubled53T
Aug 14, 2003 5:09 PM
"Correcting W has become an amusing hobby for my 11 year-old daughter."

You would do your daughter well to teach her tollerance, let her choose her own politics later.
Why would you teach a child tolerance for poor communication? nmczardonic
Aug 15, 2003 9:49 AM
Why would you teach a child tolerance for poor communication? nm53T
Aug 15, 2003 3:30 PM
Poor communication? Did his message not get conveyed to you? You're level of policy criticism tells me that you understand the man's message. I assume the communication was sucessful.

What you are being critical of, and teaching your children to be critical of, is the differences amoung us that make our nation truly great. The hard fact that we each posses different competencies, while nobody is expert in all areas. One man may be expert in English grammar, but could not inspire half the nation, or half the neighborhood, to elect him to office. One man may be expert in repairing power plants, but lack the skills or the disposition to provide security to a power plant in Iraq, for example. To suceed at the levels we have shown the world to be possible, we must work together. Each must contribute what he is best able to contribute, lest we follow some other course and wind up less than great.

Idealistic? You bet, children learn ideals from thier parents. They can become realists much later in life.

Would I teach my child tolerance for poor communication? Yes, I would and I do. Just as they learn from 1st grade on, children have different abilities in many different areas. In our classrooms we have childrem from full non-communicative autism to mild speach impediments. We teach them tolerence and respect for each of these children, in the hope hat they will learn tolerence and respect for all people when they are older.

I disagree with just about every word that comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. I believe that she would destroy the world if left to her own devices. However, I would never teach a child to have anything but respect for the junior Senator from New York, and forgine her her foibles, for she is probably human just like us.
Poor communication does make a difference.czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 4:12 PM
It distracts from the message. Some (detractors and defenders alike) suggest that this is by design, and if so it is even more worthy of criticism.

Moreover, one can criticize or even tease Bush for his language and still give his message its due. If Bush himself can laugh at his liguistic gaffs, I don't see how you can charge someone with breeding intolerance for doing the same.

I don't know of any physiological infirmity that accounts for Bush's speech. It strikes me as the result of intellectual apathy. If so, I think it is very worthy of criticism. If not, I owe Bush and apology.
He was born in Texas (nm)53T
Aug 15, 2003 7:12 PM