posted
I really liked "ferciferiously" in the first debate. It's actually a wonderful coinage if you think about it. (note, some people heard this as the wrong use of a correct word "vociferously", but in point of fact he actually uttered an almalgam of "ferociously" and "vociferously").
I could swear he made reference to "the internets" but no one else seems to have picked up that. At any rate, I didn't hear anything really spiffy in the 2nd debate, but there were a couple of bizarre sentence constructions that I'm sure will make it onto websites like BushismsPosts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I'm hearing, Cashew, neither candidate really walked away with a clear advantage in the 2nd debate.
While those who have already decided might be looking to cheer on their candidate, the real test of this (and the other debates) is how it affected undecided voters. I'm afraid there are so few of those this time around that the debates are really not all that important.
Or, perhaps, their importance is elevated but their focus is rather skewed.
I liked the town-hall format of this one.
I have to say though, that one of the reasons I can't bring myself to vote FOR Bush is his inability to use the English language to communicate. I really believe that our president ought to be well educated and have that show up in his extemporaneous speech.
posted
Bushisms from the official transcript, in chronological order (the first two require a little explanation, the rest obvious silliness):
That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice. [Meant to say, seventy five percent of upper management]
And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like Al Qaida...[obviously not a unique threat]
I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.
First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all.
This is different from saying, "OK, let me incent you to go on the government."
I own a timber company?! [Yup.]
QUESTIONER: ...With expansions to the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, my question to you is, why are my rights being watered down and my citizens' around me?... BUSH: ...I really don't think your rights are being watered down...I hope you don't think that.
Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes I heard him say "internets", but so what? He kicked Kerry's butt!!
This message brought to you by the people that believe Iraq was a threat to America, Jesus wants Billionaires to get bigger tax cuts becuase they pay most of the taxes, and global warming is a total liberal myth.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, SilverBlue, your's was the response I was looking for when I said Bush kicked Kerry's butt. I watched the debate, thought it was even at best (I thought Bush did a little better on Iraq, Kerry on domestic stuff), but the petty nitpicking on "internets" is just that, petty, so deliberately went way over the top on who 'won', just to bug people.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We make fun of our politicians here in New Zealand too, in fact there's probably no other Western country where politicians are les respected than here (although I'm open to correction), not for any reason of corruption, we just don't likem. From my perspective, the majority of reporting we get here on Bush is of the petty kind, which always seems to me at best simplistic, and at worst empty-headed propaganda. I can't see the point of it really, there's always more complexity to a person than a superficial judgement makes, and I believe responsible media should look beyond the superficial. The same thing happens when Bill Clinton is reported on in the media here, he's pretty much worshipped here, because when he was here in '98 or'99 for a political conference he charmed everybody with the undeniable charisma the man has, and so in most of our media's view can do no wrong. I get impatient with dismissive judgements of people, made just for the sake of saying something 'clever', that so many blithely accept uncritically. A 'misspeak' doesn't make a man a fool, it just makes him a man.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A 'misspeak' doesn't make a man a fool, it just makes him a man.
Cashew, while I respect your opinion apparently a lot more than you respect the opinion you have ascribed to me, I have to tell you that it bothers me that Bush seems to generate these malapropisms so frequently. It comes out most in stressful situations, it also appears.
There are two things I dislike about it in our President:
1) This man, in particular, has had every advantage that America has to offer, including the best education that money AND INFLUENCE can 'purchase.' He has apparently wasted at least a portion of it by not learning how to speak with even a normal level of competence. That speaks to me of a person who is wasteful of resources and the chances given him in life. It speaks to me of a man who may not display good judgement and prudence in the rest of his behavior. And so it is potentially indicative of something seriously wrong with the man beyond his mere humanity.
I think it may indicate a devaluing of education in his way of thinking. Since I happen to value education for all citizens, I think a President who appears so ill educated and for whom so many make gratuitous excuses is a danger to the one thing that I think America needs more than anything -- improved education.
It also makes me think that he may be lazy -- that it is too much bother to learn to say things properly. In which case I think it speaks to a lack of caring on his part and, in particular, a lack of respect for the American people.
Since he also seems to find speaking somewhat difficult, I think this may develop into a barrier for him. That since it is obviously not a strong suit, he would like to avoid discussion and dialog whenever possible. This is a problem on the world scene since diplomacy (which at times does require the President to communicate with othes) has the possibility of winning us allies, stabilizing volatile situations and thus avoiding war.
2) The President of the United States is our representative to the world. If I can't figure out what he's trying to say to that world, I am concerned that the people who need to base decisions on what he has to say are also similarly flummoxed. That includes other heads of state and even people in his own Administration. If miscommunication creates confusion, then he has misrepresented us and made it more difficult to obtain what we hope to obtain for our country and for the world.
I can understand you being angry with your press for superficial reporting. I don't really think you understand what drives my feeling of loathing for our current President. Just because I haven't gone into the WHOLE thing here and focussed only on this one disconnect does not mean that I haven't got deeper and even more depressing thoughts about Mr. Bush. In this instance, I have been careful to:
1) Start this as a separate thread so as not to enter it into the discussions over who won the debate or other topics more seriously about the upcoming election. That was only partly because I like the increased attention that a separate thread gives me.
2) Couch my criticisms of his language problems in terms of them being "ONE" thing I dislike about having GWB as my President.
I'm trying not to take offense at things like
quote:I get impatient with dismissive judgements of people, made just for the sake of saying something 'clever', that so many blithely accept uncritically.
Since I figure you really aren't pointing to me when you belittle those who don't meet your standard for consistently providing deeper insights into the election process.
Alternatively, I guess I can at least take solace in the fact that you use the word "clever" to describe what I said.
quote:Well, SilverBlue, your's was the response I was looking for when I said Bush kicked Kerry's butt. ... so deliberately went way over the top on who 'won', just to bug people.
posted
There are internets, plural. The first of which -- Autodin (Automatic Digital Network), DISN (Defense Information Systems Network), etc -- have been online before the word 'internet' (which isn't the word 'Internet') first came into use in 1974, before the creation of the Darpanet which became the Arpanet which spawned the Internet. Various others have been created since Darpanet's inception; both governmental and commercial.
What makes them internets is, basicly, you can't get there from here. eg Using an ADI (Autodin-to-DISN Interface) to make a connection between Autodin and DISN creates an internet. And just as being on Autodin doesn't automaticly give one access to DISN and being on DISN doesn't automaticly give one access to Autodin, an ADI doesn't give one access to the other secure networks such as ITSDN (Integrated Tactical/Strategic Data Network), DSV (Digital Signal Verbindung), etc or the various internets created between them.
So "Bush is on the _other_ internets." is correct. The President of the United States of America has access to more internets than anyone else in the world. Including the DRSN (Defense Red Switch Network) which internets with darn near everything military, emergency, and intelligence related in the event of a major war.
If you are speaking of 'Internets', there is our WorldWideWeb Internet and the Internet2 created by the academic, corporate, and governmental agencies which created/used the Arpanet because the WorldWideWeb has become too insecure, is far too slow, and is far far too liable to drop data which would slow down operations. Though Internet2 shares many of the same physical facilities with the WWW, you can't get there from here because Internet2 uses dedicated lines, dedicated routers, and dedicated servers separate from our Internet.
posted
Bob, while I may not agree with your conclusions about Bush, it was not your obviously thoughtful reasons for rejecting him I was referring to. I was talking more about the knee-jerk reaction that says, "Oh, the guy (any guy) made a mistake, he must be an idiot." I'm really speaking from a distant perspective here. As a New Zealander I'm not directly involved in the US election process, obviously, and so it's very easy for people (and some of the media) here to dismiss things related to the election with out giving much thought to them. A lot of people here are eager to believe the man's a buffoon, and it just seems to me that that's too easy, too simplistic. I can't see that you can get to be the leader of the most important democracy in the world by being a fool. I'm not saying Bush's the best thing since sliced bread, I'm just trying to make a point about what I've seen as superficial name calling. And really it doesn't matter what side that's on. I don't like it when it happens about Kerry either. I think it obscures the real issues and makes it too easy for people who are too lazy to think clearly to make bad decisions. I'm trying to make clear that I understand (and respect) the difference between thought-out reasons like yours for rejecting/criticising Bush, and more superficial, intellectually lazy reasons. Hope I have.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to make a deal. I won't say anything about Mr. Bush's internets if his side will finally lay off about Gore's "invention." One stupid, accurate-with-a-long-explanation public statement for another. I think that's fair.
[ October 10, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cashew -- 'sokay. I didn't seriously think that was aimed at me. I only went way over the top to bug you.
One of my best friends is a New Zealander. Lives in the States now. He loves NZ, though.
He's also Hungarian, which seems an odd combination.
Anyway, I really don't want to Bush/bash. As some have pointed out, he may well be our President for another 4 years and while I do not hope for that, I do think that he would deserve my respect and a certain amount of loyalty should that happen.
I could even find it in my heart to vote for him if he replaced Cheney on the ticket with someone like McCain.
I'm not such a huge fan of Kerry's, but I do not relish another 4 years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft, etc.
If that team is re-elected, however, it's not like I'm going to wear sack-cloth or shave my head. In truth, I suspect that whoever is President over the next 4 years will have their hands tied by the need to do right by Iraq and the struggles we'll face with our economy.
I believe we would be better served by Kerry and Edwards in the long run. But I don't think my world will come to an end if they aren't elected.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
So he did say it!!!![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
