A lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing.
After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk. Carol Kalish spoke much the same way.
See, many people just say whatever’s running through their mind, and the phrases often don’t parse as sentences. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to transcribe an interview. In such case, more often than not, a sentence begins in one place but doesn’t end where it should because the speaker has gone off track.
Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences. When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say so that it will track from beginning to end. He considers his words and then uses them. By contrast, Bush just flails. He starts sentences without a clue where he’s going with them, and oftentimes trails off into confusion or dead ends. What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.
PAD
• 
Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He’s abhorred — but no apologies.
I find this fascination with getting Bush to apologize for something… ANYTHING to be , well, fascinating.
Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it’s occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!
Setting aside the Bush V. Kerry debate as a separate matter, I have to agree with PAD that many people don’t seem to have a grasp of the English language, and probably don’t read much, or at least not as much as they used to. I often see examples of poor language skills online, including sentences without proper (or any) punctuation, confusion about the use of “your” vs. “you’re”, “it’s” vs. “its” and, in personal attacks, confusing “looser” with “loser.”
And there’s “words” like “proactive”, bandied about in print, online and in speech. Someone apparently decided that we needed a word that would be the opposite of “reactive” and came up with “proactive”, apparently forgetting that the word “active” was already being used.
And then there’s the incorrect “alright” for the proper “all right.”
Unfortunately, I think we, as a society are dumbing ourselves down. Take, as a case in point, the fact that since the senior George Bush has been president, newspapers identify the president by his full name: “President George Bush,” “President Bill Clinton”, “President George W. Bush.” Prior to that, it was just “President LAST NAME.” Pick up a newspaper article from the Reagan years or earlier and except on rare occasion, you’ll see something like, “President Reagan met today with Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss arms reductions” or “President Kennedy will give his state of the union address tonight” or somesuch.
Those aren’t actual lead sentences, by the way, just hypothetical examples. But back then, it was assumed people were intelligent enough to know the president’s first name. Or if they didn’t know it, they knew how to use an encyclopedia, or at the very least a telephone, to call the paper and/or the reference desk at the local library to find out what it was.
Today, however, it seems that the news media have decided that people won’t be able to figure out the president’s first name. I write for a newspaper, and while we are generally pretty good at just giving the president’s last name, we do the same first name and last name identifier with the mayor and the governor. As with identifying the president, I don’t think that’s necessary (and have argued the case, repeatedly). I’d like to think people know the mayor’s first name and the governor’s, or know how to find out if they don’t.
I’m reminded of a “Non Sequitur” cartoon I’ve clipped out and put up on the filing cabinet near my desk. A newspaper editor is admonishing a reporter that he should tone down his writing from the college level to the 8th grade level. The reporter points out the amount of leadership they’ve lost since catering to that level of literacy. The editor considers for a moment, and then says, “By golly, you’re right. Make it fourth grade level.” In response, the reporter thinks to himself, “I’ve GOT to stop depending on logic.”
One of the really depressing things is getting material from politicians or people who want to hold political office, and finding basic grammatical errors. You’d think they’d at least have their staff proofread their material– especially those running for office who are trying to make a good impression.
Speaking of grammatical errors, I once reviewed a mystery novel published by a small press company. The story is good, but there were several grammatical and spelling errors (including “alright”), starting on the very first page. Not only did the writer not spot them, neither did his editor or anyone else responsible for publishing the book. Did they not KNOW there were errors, or did they just not bother to do any proofreading? Who knows?
But it isn’t just the written word that people have trouble with. I have, unfortunately, also witnessed examples of people who can’t seem to string two coherent sentences together to form a reasoned argument about whatever they’re attempting to argue about.
It’s not a pretty sight, and I only hope that at some point the trend will reverse itself and people will become more literate and more articulate in the years to come.
Rick
I know this is wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y off topic but I think it bears noting:
I know that for years, PAD has gotten grief from “Buffy” and “Angel” fans who think Peter has stolen from Joss Whedon and ME when it’s really been coincidence at best. The funny thing is, the parallels continue. Both PAD and ME have series that are ending. Both of those cancellations have created a fan response calculated to save the series. And in both cases, the creators are saying, “Let it go. Move on. I have.”
**– Ken from Chicago
P.P.P.S. I’m neither pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. In a choice between two evils, I choose not. Or as George Carlin put it, “If you vote then you have no right to complain.” Or as Norman Jewison wrote in the movie AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, which Al Pacino got to say, “I’m not out of order, the whole system’s out of order!”**
Y’know, for the most part, I wanted to stay out of this (Although why people come here and act surprised to find anti-Bush sentiment is beyond me…) but this noise is just downright ignorant.
I can not, for the life of me, understand why people are so proud to be lazy. “Don’t blame me. I took a good look at the situation, didn’t like it and did *absolutely nothing* about it. Didn’t make it better. Didn’t make it worse. Didn’t try. Much easier to just sit back, do nothing and snipe.”
The reason that Bush and his fellow criminals have been able to perpetrate so many crimes against the American people is because Cheney is a very bad but very shrewd man. You can see that he’s figured out, “These cattle will take anything we dish out to them. They’re way too fat, stupid, lazy and ignorant to do anything about it and those who don’t like it still won’t bother to get their fat áššëš off the couch or their too smug about being above it all.”
There is *no such thing* as not making a choice. Politicians are absolutely reliant on your lack of participation and giving them that is nothing to be proud of.
I make this loaded analogy: This is no different than anyone who allowed the Nazis to come into power. They claim they did nothing to help it but they did nothing to stop it too and that’s as good as helping.
Wow – a liberal mind being petty about something so stupid. I never thought to ever see such a thing! *End Sarcasm*
My word! Besides Bush, the number of people you just insulting is huge. You basicly just said the American People don’t like smart people, becuase we’re all just as stupid as Bush. If anybody is stupid, in certinly sounds like it’s you. This is a petty argument, with no basis on Bush’s skills as a leader. It’s insulting and arogant, to assume a person with speech difficulties are dumb.
Some people simply have difficulty talking. I didn’t speak right away, as a kid, becuase of medical problems. I had to go to a speech therapist for years. Even today, when I’d say I’m fairly artiuclate – I still have difficulties grasping onto certin words.
I’m not making an comparisons in status – but other leaders in history have had speach difficulties. Moses, for example, had a severe studdering problem – yet overcame it to lead his people out of Egypt.
Now, I can assume your gonna shoot back that he doesn’t have a speech problem, – that he just talks badly. Yes – that’s probably true. And all the more irrelivent.
When you talk like this, wether you support Bush or Kerry (either one’s fine) – you make yourself appear shallow and ignorant of the real issues. Basing your opinions on somebody, based on their speah abilties, is like saying you merely want a pretty package; and not caring wether that package has any substance to it.
“Thirty years from now…”
I think it’s rather more likely we’ll look back on all the ‘Five Minutes of Hate’ against President Bush the way the literate among us have started to look at Communist spies in the fifties: after decades of liberals shrieking and shrieking about McCarthyism, decoded Soviet transmissions prove that that Sen. McCarthy was absolutely right, that Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, McCarthur et al were bought and paid for by the blood enemies of the US. The NY Times, after hysterically denying it for almost fifty years, quietly buried the Soviet documents (known as the Venona Project) hoping everyone would forget about, the way the USA Today Freedom of Information Act recount of the Florida votes was buried (Al Gore Jr. lost, by the way. Funny how everyone said count the votes count the votes, until they did, and then you all got suspicously quiet about vote counting). After they finish giving a proper burial Iraqis Saddam murdered over thirty years (300,000 in mass graves, according to the Red Cross) after another few Al Quai’da plots like the one the Jordan that would have slaughtered 80,000 (and was, by the by, orchestrated by Baghdad based bin Laden aide Zarqawi- nope, no Iraq terrorist connect here!), after the WMD stockpiles which Saddam admitted he had and used against the Iranians and his own people are uncovered in Syria (among other places), after the Oil-for-Food scandel publicises the French/Russian/UN conspiracy to keep Saddam in power to the tune of billions (with a b) in illegal oil bribes, after the war crimes trial of Saddam where the inhuman atrocities he committed to maintain his stranglehold on power are brought to light, both in his own country and in the ruthless attempts to take over Kuwait and Iran…
Well, I think there are a few “Bush is the worst world leader of all time ever in history and oh by the way he’s a stupidhead” agit-prop liberals that will have some explaining to do.
Or are any Democrats (besides Joe Liberman) honest enough for that? Given enough time, I suspect the Civil War will be rewritten so that the brave Democrats fought the evil Republican Lincoln to free the slaves.
It’s just sad, really.
By the way, that “taking the disengaged thing to a zen level” rebuttal (the praise for Mr. David’s work is genuine), wasn’t that the same season where Bartlett ‘accidentally’ made a childish, sarcastic while the camera was still on? Why does that sound familiar? And why is it that the height if scintillating debate with Democrats is you all calling Republicans ‘stupid’? What is this, elementary school? Oh, Reagan was stupid, oh Ford was stupid, oh Nixon was supid (and mean), oh Bush is stupid. Do you not hear how pathetic that starts to sound after a few decades? Do any of you have a MBA from Harvard? Do you see how infantile that is?
Sorry for the long post. I was just wondering.
Actually, George Carlin didn’t say that. There’s a big speech circulating around the Net, alternately attributed to either Carlin or Robin Williams; however, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the work of either man will readily recognize this as being the product of neither. I guess somebody thought it’d sound more impressive if they claimed a celebrity said it.
Second, as Pack has pointed out, in a situation like a national election, there’s no such thing as not deciding. Or, as Geddy Lee put it (slightly altering Neil Peart’s original words),
“If you decide not to decide,
You still have made a choice!”
I find this fascination with getting Bush to apologize for something… ANYTHING to be , well, fascinating.
Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it’s occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!
EClark posts a substance-free rant? Kerry should apologize! 🙂
As for a more substantive response … has anyone suggested Bush should apologize for any of the above? Not that I’ve seen, though I’d be interested to see the quotes if someone has. Bush is not responsible for Madrid. Or the toe-stubbing. Or the dance. Or the … well, if the ice caps melt I actually think he probably SHOULD apologize for his unwavering insistence that global warming is a myth.
Abu Ghraib, however, is an event that has occurred on his watch, and he created the environment in which it could occur.
He’s the one who got us into Iraq.
He’s the one who made Saddam out to be Satan incarnate, so that it’s a small leap to assume anyone who worked for him deserves whatever torture they get.
He’s the one who casts everything in two-sided “with us or against us” terms, making it extraordinarily difficult for soldiers in tight spots to notice shades of gray.
He’s the one who insists POW rules don’t apply at Guantanamo, which makes it an easy leap to say “they don’t apply here either, motherf****r — now strip and get on the floor.”
I’m not after Bush to apologize for everything up to and including the common cold. I would, however, like to see some indication that he recognizes he’s not perfect and that his policies can occasionally lead to problems. I am still waiting.
TWL
I doubt we’ll have to wait thirty years for the negatives on Bush to come out. In a few weeks he’ll be done to the 40% of the voters who will never desert him unless he gets outed. Although I agree with PAD that karma would dictate that Bush should get elected just to have to clean up his own messes.
“Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.”
Actually, I rather doubt that. For one, most children never asked their parents or grandparents about the American take-over of Hawaii and various other islands in the first half of the twentieth century. It could end up on the History Channel to remind people on occasion, but otherwise, it just sort of slips out of our consciousness. Bush will likely just be remembered as a rather dopey, inarticulate president.
Surges, ordinarily I don’t pick apart posts like this. However, if you’re going to pose as an intellectual, it might behoove you to take a moment and ensure your post says what you want it to say – about the topic, and about you.
“This is a petty argument, with no basis on Bush’s skills as a leader.” This is an interesting sentence, with little basis in (not on) proper grammar.
Now, on to spelling issues:
basically
it (not “in”, in that context)
arrogant
is (a person [B]is[/B], people [B]are[/B])
articulate
certain
speech
stuttering
you’re
irrelevant
whether
(Great, stupid job interrupted – now I have to hope I’m not the seventeenth person to point out the cognitive dissonance here…)
Let’s be honest – the errors noted above are so basic, they give the impression that you either don’t know the difference, or don’t care – neither of which reflects well on you or your post.
Well, so much for that “no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric” resolution from a while back. 🙂
We are. If George W. Bush comes here and posts, we’ll be perfectly civil to him to start, and will reply to him as he replies to us.
On the other hand, if he continues in his “Who cares what you think?” mode to us, we’ll respond in kind.
eClark wrote: “Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it’s occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!”
As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don’t want Bush to apologize for those things. Now the tax cuts that haven’t helped, the war that put our soldiers into the line of fire, the prisoner abuses, these happened under him. (For that matter, 9/11 happened on his watch. So he blamed Clinton’s administration.)
How about apologizing for the WMD claims? For months before going into Iraq, all we heard from the administration was Weapons of Mass Destriction: Saddam could launch a missile attack against Britain in 40 minutes, he could have chemical weapons, he’s been trying to get nukes, British intelligence says he has them, we must act NOW or face another 9/11. And when they don’t turn up? When we’ve been in control of Iraq for over a year? Does Bush say he was mistaken? No, they might still be there. He used them before. And Hussein was a bad man. Oh, and if he used faulty British intelligence in a State of the Union, nothing to be sorry about there. Why apologize about misleading the American people?
eClark wrote: “Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it’s occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!”
As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don’t want Bush to apologize for those things. Now the tax cuts that haven’t helped, the war that put our soldiers into the line of fire, the prisoner abuses, these happened under him. (For that matter, 9/11 happened on his watch. So he blamed Clinton’s administration.)
How about apologizing for the WMD claims? For months before going into Iraq, all we heard from the administration was Weapons of Mass Destriction: Saddam could launch a missile attack against Britain in 40 minutes, he could have chemical weapons, he’s been trying to get nukes, British intelligence says he has them, we must act NOW or face another 9/11. And when they don’t turn up? When we’ve been in control of Iraq for over a year? Does Bush say he was mistaken? No, they might still be there. He used them before. And Hussein was a bad man. Oh, and if he used faulty British intelligence in a State of the Union, nothing to be sorry about there. Why apologize about misleading the American people?
Could someone explain to me why liberalism is a disease?
This isn’t a smart-aleck question. Nor do I want to know why you’re a conservative instead of a liberal. What I want to know is why does the word “liberal” make some people reach for the Lysol.
I’m a liberal as *I* define it. That means I accept society will change, and using old methods to greet the change make not be the best method in dealing with change. A larger number of openly gay people in society? Deal with it by trying to overcome homophobia, allowing for long-term relationships and the legal and social devices available to heteros. 9/11? Track down those responsible while trying to reach out and making less enemies, not more. Economy off the wheels? Use tax dollars to develop new technologies that the private sector can turn into growth, new jobs, and new tax revenues. And so on, so forth…
In other words, why am I a disease? Please explain it to me. Refrain from insults and profanities, if possible. I’m just curious.
“What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.”
“Can anyone tell me how that is NOT just a long winded roundabout way of calling Bush supporters idiots?”
Well, first by the absence of the word “idiot.” And second, because I don’t think it’s limited to Bush supporters.
I think the nation as a whole lacks vision. If for no other reason, I base this on the staggering percentage of people who have zero clue what freedom of expression–the most fundamental right this country should have–actually means. And this is a sentiment that not only cuts across party lines, but is probably even more aggressively embraced by politically correct liberals than it is conservatives.
I think Americans are so eager for a man of vision that they’ll embrace someone who possesses it even if that vision is fatally flawed, just because he has one. The main job now of the Bush campaign is to ratchet up the signal to noise ratio so thoroughly that, if Kerry *does* have a vision, it gets buried in a haze of non-issue diarrhea over what he did with his medals thirty years ago. Thus far it’s succeeding.
Now if you want to boil all that down to saying that Bush supporters are idiots, go ahead. But it’s not an accurate summary of my feelings on the matter. For starters, it lacks vision.
PAD
“Peter has a right to say whatever he wants, whether we agree with him or not. This is America, and I – for one – respect his right to be so outspoken in so public a fashion. I may not always agree with you, PAD, but I’ll defend your right to say what you want with my dying breath. Whether I like what you’ve said or not.”
Has anyone noticed that all people named “Bud” are just automatically likable…?
PAD
Has anyone noticed that all people named “Bud” are just automatically likable…?”
That’s because Bud’s wiser. He’s got a good head.
Or maybe that post was just good for what ales you.
I’d better go – that last was beerly acceptable, even by my bockwards standards…
Ray:
>Could someone explain to me why liberalism is a disease?
Near as I can tell it comes down to people feeling that liberal thought threatens the status quo and black & white thought. Change has always met with resistance.
“My word! Besides Bush, the number of people you just insulting is huge. You basicly just said the American People don’t like smart people, becuase we’re all just as stupid as Bush”
No, I’m saying that many Americans don’t like smart people because…well, I don’t know why, really. Maybe it goes back to being irritated with the smart kids in the class because their grades blew the bell curve. But there is an anti-intellectualism that pervades almost every facet of this country, and it shows in everything from the level of our entertainment to the level of our presidency. The spiralling level of this country’s education isn’t exactly news: Johnny hasn’t been reading since the 1960s, and since I counted three grammatical mistakes or wrong words in your comment above, well…
PAD
Funny thing is that I was typing out a letter telling Peter David why I wasn’t going to get Captain Marvel or any of his comics again, (nor browse this web site again, etc.) when I remembered that part of what our founding fathers died trying to do: give freedom to all so that all may choose for themselves.
Bush or Kerry, it will be our nation’s decision – for better or for worse. We, as Americans will have to live with that decision as much as our leaders have to live with their decisions they make on a daily basis.
On this National Day of Prayer, we as Americans we can hope and pray for the best, no matter what the outcome.
http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/
God bless you Peter, it’s been fun.
Here’s an interesting link for you Bush bashers I just came upon. Kinda nice to see a nice story.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/loc_moment06.html
Jonathan (the other one):
Those beer puns made me so furious, I’m foaming at the mouth.
I guess the question at that point is, is Bush really doing anything to Foster this strange belief that his administration might reinstitute a Genuine Draft? Surely that’s just being spread to tap into the nation’s fears.
Oh, and one other question: if a beer is brave and cuts down trees, is it a stout-hearted lager?
Apologies to all.
Eric
Paul:
>>On this National Day of Prayer, we as Americans we can hope and pray for the best, no matter what the outcome.
Although this was said only with the best of intentions, the thought process is one of the main reasons why we get ourselves in trouble. People with value systems are not considered, taen into account or recognized as being tolerated for their own way of thought, governence, etc.
National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well… who don’t pray.
>>National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well… who don’t pray.
Not exactly. We have your “value systems” covered, too. During an Orthodox Christian service we bless and pray for “all the people and everything.” We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. 😉
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040506/D82D86T80.html
I think you’re missing the point, Mike. Saying “I’ll pray for atheists in case they’re wrong” is the equivalent of telling a Christian “I’ll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn’t the right one.” Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive.
It’s not offensive in an in-your-face kind of way, but it just reeks of, if you’ll pardon the term, a holier-than-thou attitude.
As Fred said, I don’t think you’re doing this with anything other than the best of intentions, but this particular atheist would just as soon you don’t include me in said prayers. I’ll take my own chances.
TWL
What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
If you can’t see that what you have written is arrogant and insulting, than you are either a liar, or you are one of the people that you are alluding to in your “vague grasp of the English language” remark.
“We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. ;)”
But what about the polytheists and the pantheists?
Minds me of the time I told my ex-wife (a neo-pagan) that the people in our neighborhood at the time, in Omaha, NE, considered her a godless heathen. She indignantly retorted, “I beg your pardon – I have SEVERAL gods!”
>>National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well… who don’t pray.
Mike:
>Not exactly. We have your “value systems” covered, too. During an Orthodox Christian service we bless and pray for “all the people and everything.” We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. 😉
I’d rather have a dollar.
Tim:
>I think you’re missing the point, Mike. Saying “I’ll pray for atheists in case they’re wrong” is the equivalent of telling a Christian “I’ll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn’t the right one.” Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive.
>It’s not offensive in an in-your-face kind of way, but it just reeks of, if you’ll pardon the term, a holier-than-thou attitude.
>As Fred said, I don’t think you’re doing this with anything other than the best of intentions, but this particular atheist would just as soon you don’t include me in said prayers. I’ll take my own chances.
Actually, the prayer and well wishes don’t offend me. This in and of itself doesn’t cause harm to others. When a group, church or nation acts out in a way that directly and negatively effects another group with different values under the predisposition that it is “the right thing to do” is when I believe that serious consideration and reflection must first take place.
“after decades of liberals shrieking and shrieking about McCarthyism, decoded Soviet transmissions prove that that Sen. McCarthy was absolutely right, that Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, McCarthur et al were bought and paid for by the blood enemies of the US.”
Yeah, thank God that Commie bášŧárd Ring Lardner was nailed to the wall. God bless Joe McCarthy.
Geez.
PAD
“What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.”
“If you can’t see that what you have written is arrogant and insulting, than you are either a liar, or you are one of the people that you are alluding to in your “vague grasp of the English language” remark.”
I don’t think the remark was especially arrogant. Arrogant means “filled with one’s own self-importance.” Perhaps “insensitive” would be more accurate. You probably felt I didn’t care whether people would feel insulted. To which my response would be..well, yeah. That’s true. Then again, I haven’t encountered all that many Neocons who worry about delicate liberal sensibilities, so…
PAD
“I don’t really see the point in calling Bush an idiot.”
Truth in advertising?
“Peter David:” I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There’s no automatic merit in that. “
For a politican I would have to say that quality has merit.”
So would I. Not quite seeing the relevance, though…
PAD
“I think you’re missing the point, Mike. Saying “I’ll pray for atheists in case they’re wrong” is the equivalent of telling a Christian “I’ll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn’t the right one.” Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive.”
I dunno. I still remember when my brother (I think it was) was about seven and was in the hospital for an operation. He was lying in his hospital room, having just been knocked out in preparation, and my mother was sitting there waiting for them to take him to the OR. And the hospital priest walked in, smiled at my mother, smiled down at my brother, and then made the sign of the cross over him and murmured a few words.
And my mother was about to say that we were Jewish, but then rather pragmatically kind of mentally shrugged and thought, “Eh. Couldn’t hurt.”
PAD
“I hope you can admit that in 30 years, when your grandchildren are living safer lives because of George W. Bush.”
Yeah, when all the jobs are gone and morons like bush and his buddies discover that no one in america can afford to buy anything these companies make because they’ve shipped all teh jobs overseas to maximize their profits, leaving only low-playing service jobs for Americans, who can’t even afford to buy gas anymore, much less a car or other luxuries…
When your safe because big brother is monitoring you 24/7 in your homes and on the street in the name of “Protecting” America and Americans.
Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too…
I knew the definition of arrogant, and intentional or not, the implication of your remark is that you are one of the “people who are smarter than they.” and by that token, smarter than most Bush supporters. I would call that arrogant.
“Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too…”
So is this one of those forums that shuts down the thread when Hitler is mentioned? It’s always a sign that the bag of legitimate debate tricks is empty …
Jerry Smith, if you are a true conservative then you should be more angry at the current administration than any democrat in this country because Bush and Co. are undermining and distorting true conservative ideals into some scary, big spending,socially intrusive,individual rights crushing, special interest loving, frighteningly religious monster.
I’m not saying you should vote for John Kerry but there is no way a true conservative would be pleased with the current president.
Finally, education. Why are liberals against choice? Liberals will not only insist I send my children to a bad school, they legislate that if I can
>
Actually I think that, given trends, people tend to be less and less informed about politics. I think in 30 years people won’t be looking back and seeing the stupidity, because things maybe that much worse.
People tend to vote more on the ‘sound bite’ and looks. Now note to those who can’t read, I said tend.
With former wrestlers and actors whose vision seems to be ‘vote for me, I’m famous’, thirty years from now you’ll have president Brittany Spears running for her second term.
Bush might not look quite so bad in hindsight….. isn’t that a scary thought.
PAD wrote:
Considering the staggering illiteracy rate in this country and the fact that many people *don’t* read (80% of book sales in this country are made by 5% of the population), I’d say it’s more a case of the country as a whole getting exactly the president it deserves.
So readers of newspapers and periodicals don’t count as readers because they don’t purchase books? What a strange definition you have of the word “reader”. I guess if I check out a book from the library and read it, that means I haven’t actually read it, because I didn’t pay for it.
Talk about trailing off into confusion…
-Dave O’Connell
PAD wrote:
Considering the staggering illiteracy rate in this country and the fact that many people *don’t* read (80% of book sales in this country are made by 5% of the population), I’d say it’s more a case of the country as a whole getting exactly the president it deserves.
So readers of newspapers and periodicals don’t count as readers because they don’t purchase books? What a strange definition you have of the word “reader”. I guess if I check out a book from the library and read it, that means I haven’t actually read it, because I didn’t pay for it.
Talk about trailing off into confusion…
-Dave O’Connell
“Yeah, thank God that Commie bášŧárd Ring Lardner was nailed to the wall. God bless Joe McCarthy.”
Don’t let the facts (that declassified Soviet messages have indeed proved that McCarthy was right about Soviet infiltration into the highest levels of government) get in the way of your sincerely held opinion. However, I’ve never been able to understand one thing –
How does the HOUSE (of Representatives) Committee on UnAmerican Activities (which I trust you are referring to when you bring up Ring Lardner) have to do with SENATOR Joe McCarthy?
Kind of two different houses of Congress, ya know?
PAD wrote:
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.
The only thing I can be sure of thirty years from now is that the Democrats will still be blaming Ralph Nader for Bush’s rise to power instead of their own ineptitude.
-Dave O’Connell
PAD wrote:
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.
The only thing I can be sure of thirty years from now is that the Democrats will still be blaming Ralph Nader for Bush’s rise to power instead of their own ineptitude.
-Dave O’Connell
I can’t stand Bush. That moron has done more harm then good to this country then any of the presidents before him. He lies, can’t speak English, has pìššëd øff almost every allies we ever had, enraged the Arabs, tossed away BILLIONS in surplus to replace it with BILLIONS in debt, invade a poorly defended nation, ignored a hostile North Korea, gave tax cuts to the rich and lets special interest run his national policy.
The man (cough cough) should be tried for crimes against humanity, and jail for the rest of his life. He makes me ashamed to be an American.
As long as we’re all making over-the-top blowhard predictions about what’ll be happening 30 years hence, here’s mine:
By 2034, the period from 1861-1865 will be referred to as the First American Civil War, regardless of who wins this November.
And I hope to hëll I’m wrong.
TWL
who had also hoped all this “on the wrong side of history” posturing went out with Khruschev’s shoe-banging
To Jerry Smith.
You wrote:
“And respectfully Peter, you are on the wrong side of history. I hope you can admit that in 30 years, when your grandchildren are living safer lives because of George W. Bush”
How does Bush invading Iraq and blinding supporting Israelis plan on keeping illegal land (which goes against EVERY other president since the 40) make us Safer?
Bush has swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations since his “War on Terror” Began. There are more people now willing to die to kill an American then ever before. I guess Bush would just say “bring them on”. I don’t see his loved ones on the front line. I don’t see his children getting shot at, stuck in 100+ Degree heat over a cause they don’t support. Ripped from their family for a pointless mission.
The only good job Bush has done is get us in trouble with the rest of the world. Great, thanks Bush.
Bush vs. Kerry. Now there’s a tough one.
Personall, I don’t think either man deserves to win…but what can you do? Throw your vote away?
Bush doesn’t deserve to win for obvious reason: He’s been a mediocre president and left the country worse off than it was before he took office..and, no, it’s not all the fault of Clinton or the “terrorists.” Most of it is Bush’s fault, I’m sorry to say. He’s not the being of pure evil most liberals seem to claim, but he’s certainly not any good.
Kerry, on the other hand, doesn’t deserve to win simply because he’s a mediocre choice as well. What has he ever done to deserve the position of the most powerful office in the world? If Kerry wins, it’ll only be because he’s yet to prove that he’ll be as mediocre as Bush…and that’s just sad. If we actually elect Kerry, what kind of message will that send to the Democrats? That we’re actually content to let them nominate such crappy, boring, uninspiring candidates? How will that help our country?
Personally, I’m tempted to vote for Bush simply to send a message to the Democrats that they need to grow some backbone and finally nominate sombody who’s actually got a chance of being a good president. But then again, I’m not actually going to do that since there’s no chance the Democratic party will actually grow some backbone.
It’ll never happen.
So…neither of these jokers deserve to win…but I guess I’ll go with Kerry simply because he deserves to lose a little bit less. How sad is that?