# Mr. President - It is the 'Democratic' Party



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2006)

Mr. President, really, there is not a whole lot you could do or say that would change my opinion of your leadership. You have launched a war of choice for the first time in the nations history. You have misspent America's standing in the world. You have mislead the country into debt and debacle. You have allowed the incompetent to mismanage programs designed to serve those whom you serve. 

I am a member of the Democratic Party of America. Members of this party love this country as much as Independents and Republicans. 

You insult us by using the language of right wing, rhetorical, radio hosts who offer nothing but insults and propaganda. By adopting their derogatory term to describe we citizens of this country. You shame yourself, your party and your office. 

Shame on You. 

Michael Atkinson

Citizen


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_says_Democrat_approach_in_Iraq_1030.html



> Speaking at a rally held at Georgia Southern University to support Max Burn's bid for Congress, this afternoon, President Bush claimed that "the *Democrat* (sic) approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses."
> While "the *Democrat* (sic) goal is to get out of Iraq," Bush told the crowd of supporters that "the Republican goal is to win in Iraq."


 
And Mr. Bush - You have lost Iraq. For everyone other than the oil companies, who will have their PSA's by the end of the year. Your leadership and mismanagement has crippled the region for the next fifty years. You have jeapordized our allies in the area. You have bankrupted our childrens' future so Exxon Mobile can usurp the oil profits from under the Iraqi's control. The war is lost.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Mr. Bush, in the State of the Union address, again slurred the Democratic Party by referring to it as the "Democrat majority". 

That Mr. Bush shows such contempt of, at minimum, a third of America, speaks volumes, I think.

It's nice to know that since the original post, the Democratic Party took 31 seats away from the Republican Party in the United States House of Representatives and 6 seats away from the Republican Party in the United States Senate. And, a number of State legislatures also added Democratic Seats. 

It is the 'Democratic Party', Mr. President.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It is the 'Democratic Party', Mr. President.


 
True, but it would be annoying to have to make air quotes every time he said the name.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 25, 2007)

First, addressing your posts to the President is ridiculous. Somehow, I doubt he is going to be seeing it.

Second, this is a new low Michael. You are complaining about a specific term? GIVE ME A BREAK! Was there ANY ambiguity in who he was refering? He was even congradulating the democrats in their majority! GET OVER IT! How about praising Bush for congradulating the majority? How abou Pelosi? You just have an axe to grind.


On the specific terms in question, there is oddity. Such is the English language.

Correct: You are a Democrat
Incorrect: You are a Democratic

Correct: The Democratic Party
Incorrect: The Democrat Party

Correct: The country is Democratic
Incorrect: The country is Democrat

Correct: The Republic of X
Incorrect: The Republican of X

So, a country can be Democratic, but not Democrat. So, when using the term "Democratic", there is ambiguity between the party or type of government. Using the term Republican suffers less ambiguity.

Get over it!


----------



## crushing (Jan 25, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> True, but it would be annoying to have to make air quotes every time he said the name.


 
Well, at least we have moved on from how the president says 'nukular' and how it shows his contempt for those physicists and biologists.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

What's that thing that Judge Judy always says?  Oh yeah ... 'Beauty Fades, but Stupid is Forever.'

So I suppose that people who are supposed to be smart enough to run the country - the men in whose hands we place the lives of our sons and daughters - shouldn't have to be able to articulate appropriately?  Potatoe/Tomatoe?  Democrat Party?

You know, it's SO PAINFULLY obvious this man is a buffoon, I'm sorry.  Even Cheney can't bring himself to emulate the Chief's linguistic blunders.  I doubt even Limbaugh will do that (and that's saying something).

And while I acknowledge the oddity of the English language (you can spell "fish" this way -> photi) it's not like it's his second language.  He's an Ivy League grajuit ... or is that dead presidents talking?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> On the specific terms in question, there is oddity. Such is the English language.


 
As I recall, there are eight parts of speech in the English language. We are not free to mix them to our own purposes, regardless of what Frank Luntz says. It is improper use of the English language to use an adjective as a noun, or a noun for an adjective.

That the President did so, contrary to the written text prepared for him, I think displays a measure of pettiness in the man. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Get over it!


 
It is an insult. 
The President knows it is an insult. 
The President uses it to be insulting. 

Yes, that is exactly the type of leadership our country needs; a childish boor.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 25, 2007)

Of the 31 seats, I think less will be retained after 08. I don't think the Repubs got motivated enough during the midterms, and we'll see a shift back, at least in the Senate, in 08.

Enjoy while you can.

Now if my party would only get motivated


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I recall, there are eight parts of speech in the English language. We are not free to mix them to our own purposes, regardless of what Frank Luntz says. It is improper use of the English language to use an adjective as a noun, or a noun for an adjective.
> 
> That the President did so, contrary to the written text prepared for him, I think displays a measure of pettiness in the man.
> 
> ...



Well, If you say so. If you want to be insulted, there is nothing a logical thinking person can say to change your mind, so I'll just bow out of this conversation. Let the hissy fits continue at your convenience.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

Why do democrats speak of welcoming/embracing diversity;  speak of a melting pot (a "quilt of many colors"); and then make fun of someone who has picked up the accent of a particular section of America?

I'm sure that democrats wouldn't dream of making fun of someone who has a Spanish accent to their English.  I'm a Republican who is white and picked up such an accent while growing up in a predominately hispanic part of Los Angeles county.  Although I've lost the accent (pretty much) after living in different parts of the US, it still comes out once in a while.  I'd bet the Deomcrats would make fun of me for it.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> Why do democrats speak of welcoming/embracing diversity;  speak of a melting pot (a "quilt of many colors"); and then make fun of someone who has picked up the accent of a particular section of America?
> 
> I'm sure that democrats wouldn't dream of making fun of someone who has a Spanish accent to their English.  I'm a Republican who is white and picked up such an accent while growing up in a predominately hispanic part of Los Angeles county.  Although I've lost the accent (pretty much) after living in different parts of the US, it still comes out once in a while.  I'd bet the Deomcrats would make fun of me for it.


So ... you're saying the intentional mispronunciation or bastardization and butchering of the English Language - which, btw, his father didn't do nor does his brother - is "accent"?

My parents had southern accents, but they could at least accentually pronouce the correct word.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> Why do democrats speak of welcoming/embracing diversity; speak of a melting pot (a "quilt of many colors"); and then make fun of someone who has picked up the accent of a particular section of America?


 Yeah, 'cause all Texans can't string a single sentence together.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Well, If you say so. If you want to be insulted, there is nothing a *logical thinking person* can say to change your mind, so I'll just bow out of this conversation. Let the *hissy fits* continue at your convenience.


 
Just because you can't hear the dog whistle, doesn't mean it isn't being blown. 

I notice that you have reverted to ad hominems rather than discuss the supposition. I have been accused by many of being logical, seldom the reverse. And ... "hissy fits" ... that's awfuly friendly, isn't it? 

If you choose to present a logical based argument on the President's insult, I will be glad to analyze along with you.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> Why do democrats speak of welcoming/embracing diversity; speak of a melting pot (a "quilt of many colors"); and then make fun of someone who has picked up the accent of a particular section of America?


 
Ray, it is not an accent, it is mis-use of the English language. 

And, on account of the fact that Mr. Bush was educated down the road from my home, at Phillips Andover, in Andover, Massachusetts. That he graduated from Yale University in Connecticut. He received his MBA from Harvard University in Massachusetts. This education pedegree matches the best of any Northeast Liberal. 

He just plays a Texan on television.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I have been accused by many of being logical, seldom the reverse.


 
Like you said: just because you can't hear the dog whistle, doesn't mean it isn't being blown.  Your initial post and the follow-up, like many of your posts, are written in a tone scornful toward the president.  And that's fine, those are your views.  But to demand - _demand_ - of the president that he address you respectfully is not only illogical but jawdroppingly hypocritical.


----------



## crushing (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I recall, there are eight parts of speech in the English language. We are not free to mix them to our own purposes, regardless of what Frank Luntz says. It is improper use of the English language to use an adjective as a noun, or a noun for an adjective.
> 
> That the President did so, contrary to the written text prepared for him, I think displays a measure of pettiness in the man.
> 
> ...


 

I suppose anybody can be insulted by anything, but I don't know that people purposefully use 'Democrat' as an insult.  I've heard some Democratics use the word Democrat in the same way.  Of course it doesn't make it correct, but I have a feeling they weren't aware that they would insult a few people.  Maybe it is only insulting when it comes from members of the Republicanistic Party?

http://democrat.whitleynet.org/
http://www.il-democrats.org/DeWitt/calendar.html
http://www.knowledgemessenger.com/a/ViewNewsletter.asp?app=jeffcodems&id=1381&hdr=


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Like you said: just because you can't hear the dog whistle, doesn't mean it isn't being blown. Your initial post and the follow-up, like many of your posts, are written in a tone scornful toward the president. And that's fine, those are your views. But to demand - _demand_ - of the president that he address you respectfully is not only illogical but jawdroppingly hypocritical.


 
CoryKS, I just went back and re-read the first post in this thread, as I wrote it several months ago. I do not see the tone to which you refer. I make arguments about policies the President has put in place with which I disagree. If you would be so kind as to point out the specific language from which you are infering tone, we can perhaps discuss that. 

You are correct, I do have a measure of disdain for the man, George W. Bush. But, I am not certain where you are seeing that in the post. I also have been more than vocal concerning my objections to the policies of President Bush. I believe they are criminally negligent and impeachable.

In my post, however, I point out that his use of the term in question is insulting. And it is insulting the not just me, as an individiual. It is a slur against the Democratic Political Party in the United States. The President's use of the term is not just a malaprop, such as his usage of "nucular". With his use of the term, he is slandering every member of that political party. 

With 200 million registered voters in the United States, approximately 72 million of those are registered Democrats (noun, plural). The President is insulting 72 million Americans, just by dropping the 'ic' from the proper name of my political party. 

And, concerning the dog-whistle effect. Since the election, much has been talked about concerning the 'spirit of bipartisanship', however, in the most important speech the President makes before the American people each year, he sent a loud, clear signal to his political base, that he is not going to operate in that spirit. It was a code word that says to those who know how to listen ... those Democrats (noun, plural) are the enemy.

Perhaps, CoryKS, in the future, when you hear this term used in this manner, from the President, or from others, you will be able to recognize it as an insult. You may choose to ignore that it is an insult, but that should tell you something about yourself, more than it says anything about me.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

crushing said:


> I suppose anybody can be insulted by anything, but I don't know that people purposefully use 'Democrat' as an insult. I've heard some Democratics use the word Democrat in the same way. Of course it doesn't make it correct, but I have a feeling they weren't aware that they would insult a few people. Maybe it is only insulting when it comes from members of the Republicanistic Party?
> 
> http://democrat.whitleynet.org/
> http://www.il-democrats.org/DeWitt/calendar.html
> http://www.knowledgemessenger.com/a/ViewNewsletter.asp?app=jeffcodems&id=1381&hdr=


 
crushing,

The first link uses the term 'democrat' in an improper manner at the masthead of the page. You will notice that the rest of the page uses the correct part of speech. 

However, the second two links use the term correctly. 

It is not just a manner of how the word is spelled, but how it is used. This is Junior High level English.


----------



## tellner (Jan 25, 2007)

So you wouldn't mind if we called it the Pubic Party? It's just my accent. The English language is flexible. 

You would mind? It's insulting?

Ah-hah


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> So you wouldn't mind if we called it the Pubic Party? It's just my accent. The English language is flexible.
> 
> You would mind? It's insulting?
> 
> Ah-hah


I don't know who you were addressing here, but I would find it offensive to hear the Republican Party called the Pubic Party.  That's not an accent.



			
				CoryKS said:
			
		

> But to demand - _demand_ - of the president that he address you respectfully is not only illogical but jawdroppingly hypocritical.


I'm curious ... you are aware we live in a republic and not a dictatorship, right?  Because the President of the United States is supposed to serve the people of the United States - all of them.  Are you saying the President owes no respect to any citizen he serves????  Surely you're referring to another country ...???


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> So you wouldn't mind if we called it the Pubic Party? It's just my accent. The English language is flexible.
> 
> You would mind? It's insulting?
> 
> Ah-hah



Bad analogy. Democrat is not demeaning or crude. Pubic is. If Bush said something like "Demagogue party" or "Demon party" I could understand being upset. Democrat is often used incorrectly as Crushing correctly stated. How about the following quote?



			
				Modanock said:
			
		

> Of the 31 seats, I think less will be retained after 08. I don't think the Repubs got motivated enough during the midterms, and we'll see a shift back, at least in the Senate, in 08.


Should we be insulted? He said REPUB! *gasp* I doubt anyone is upset about that. Come on  As stated earlier, absoltely trivial, but some people want something to whine about... so be it  Only a person looking for insult is going to be insulted.



			
				Shelusa said:
			
		

> You know, it's SO PAINFULLY obvious this man is a buffoon, I'm sorry. Even Cheney can't bring himself to emulate the Chief's linguistic blunders. I doubt even Limbaugh will do that (and that's saying something).


LOL! If you want to consider him so  I don't think any of the alternatives in the past were any better. Kerry or Gore were not exactly the Einsteins of our era. Honestly, I would have prefered other candidates. I more voted against someone than for. Bush is not the worlds leading genius, but the same claims were made about Reagan. In retrospect, I don't find many now that consider him a buffoon. I think years down the road, Bush will be vindicated. Especially if a Democrat comes into office and Iraq/Al Qaeda starts becoming a problem on American soil.

I'm not a Republican, nor will I ever be. The party has lost its way in my view. Bush himself is not conversative enough in my opinion and much of the Republican party is not either.


----------



## crushing (Jan 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> So you wouldn't mind if we called it the Pubic Party? It's just my accent. The English language is flexible.
> 
> You would mind? It's insulting?
> 
> Ah-hah


 
Flexible indeed.  I think we are generally losing or dropping our inflections.  'Iraq war' instead of 'Iraqi war', 'Afghan elections' instead of 'Afghani elections', 'P' instead of 'Puff' (when used with Diddy) and 'Welp' instead of 'Well, people'.



Sorry about the previous mistake with the two links.  When *THE* insult we are discussing is made into a proper name, it is no longer ungrammatical, nor insulting. . . I suppose.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

mrhnau - my username is shesulsa ... not ... shelusa


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> mrhnau - my username is shesulsa ... not ... shelusa



Sorry  was typing in a hurry... Don't be insulted like Michael! *expects TON of negative rep from Shesulsa now*


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Sorry  was typing in a hurry... Don't be insulted like Michael! *expects TON of negative rep from Shesulsa now*


LOL!  No, that would be childish!   Thanks.


----------



## tellner (Jan 25, 2007)

shesulsa, it was in reference to the correspondent's suggestion that calling it the "Democrat Party" was just an accent, an example of the flexibility of the language or some similar lame excuse and that Democrats shouldn't be offended. If he really believes that, then he wouldn't mind if someone else applied the same logic to his Party. Goose, Gander and all that.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> shesulsa, it was in reference to the correspondent's suggestion that calling it the "Democrat Party" was just an accent, an example of the flexibility of the language or some similar lame excuse and that Democrats shouldn't be offended. If he really believes that, then he wouldn't mind if someone else applied the same logic to his Party. Goose, Gander and all that.


I thought so, I was just trying to be polite and respectful; you know, like a good American citizen.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> So ... you're saying the intentional mispronunciation or bastardization and butchering of the English Language - which, btw, his father didn't do nor does his brother - is "accent"?
> 
> My parents had southern accents, but they could at least accentually pronouce the correct word.


My father speaks with a "St George" accent (as in old southern Utah).  My oldest brother speaks with a central US accent.   I have one brother who spoke with a heavier Spanish accent because he ran with some gangs in the 70's.

The bastardization and butchering of the English Language has been going on for centuries.  

As for "accentually pronouncing the correct word," which I guess means that the English word with the intended meaning was pronounced "correctly" but with an accent.  I don't know but I've been around several people who pronounced "specific" as "pacific" and wasn't sure whether they had the right word with the wrong accent or visa versa.  Another time, a very intelligent degreed man spoke of a "call yum" which turned out to be a column (but I recognize it as "call um").

Then again, there are several indications that the "group noun" (like "team") is going to no longer have the singular reference ("the team have"  vrs "the team has").  We'll chalk that up to the same changes that cause people to have "an historic event" without having "an history book."

If Bush's grammer and pronunciation are the biggest problems people have, then I'm an happy 'publican.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I'm curious ... you are aware we live in a republic and not a dictatorship, right? Because the President of the United States is supposed to serve the people of the United States - all of them. Are you saying the President owes no respect to any citizen he serves???? Surely you're referring to another country ...???


 
Yes, I am aware that we live in a republic.  And I think that it would be poor service indeed to disrespect those one serves.  My post did not address the matter of whether or not the president was being disrespectful.  I was commenting on a viewpoint that appears to think it's okay to heap scorn on someone and expect none in return.  To use your service analogy, it brings to mind a restaurant customer who thinks it's okay to yell at the waitress and then demands to see a manager if she dares to roll her eyes.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> As for "accentually pronouncing the correct word," which I guess means that the English word with the intended meaning was pronounced "correctly" but with an accent.  I don't know but I've been around several people who pronounced "specific" as "pacific" and wasn't sure whether they had the right word with the wrong accent or visa versa.  Another time, a very intelligent degreed man spoke of a "call yum" which turned out to be a column (but I recognize it as "call um").
> 
> Then again, there are several indications that the "group noun" (like "team") is going to no longer have the singular reference ("the team have"  vrs "the team has").  We'll chalk that up to the same changes that cause people to have "an historic event" without having "an history book."
> 
> If Bush's grammer and pronunciation are the biggest problems people have, then I'm an happy 'publican.



Oh they're hardly the biggest problems, just the topic of this thread.  And did you ever notice that Bush Sr. and brother Jeb don't seem to have the same "accent"?


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

Marginal said:


> Yeah, 'cause all Texans can't string a single sentence together.


You think that Foxworth's humor sold because it wasn't based on some bit of truth.  I'm sure there are lots of educated Texans who speak very well, but I've met several who didn't.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, it is not an accent, it is mis-use of the English language.
> 
> And, on account of the fact that Mr. Bush was educated down the road from my home, at Phillips Andover, in Andover, Massachusetts. That he graduated from Yale University in Connecticut. He received his MBA from Harvard University in Massachusetts. This education pedegree matches the best of any Northeast Liberal.
> 
> He just plays a Texan on television.


Do you mean "northeastern" liberal?  Or is that a reference to some althetic team?


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Oh they're hardly the biggest problems, just the topic of this thread.  And did you ever notice that Bush Sr. and brother Jeb don't seem to have the same "accent"?


I don't have the same accent as my parents or sister, and we have always lived in the same state. Is that a big deal? I imagine there are a ton of similar families.


----------



## DavidCC (Jan 25, 2007)

Referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party is insulting BECAUSE THEY SAY IT IS.  People outside that group may not see how it is insulting but they feel it is.

Apply the same measure to any ethnic group and who would argue it. Blacks and the N word.  Hispanics with a damp posterior   etc etc

but just to be fair Democrats coud start referring to the GOP as the 'Publican Party' that might be just as insulting.

American Heritage Dictionary - _Cite This Source_ *pub·li·can*   (p&#365;b'l&#301;-k&#601;n)  Pronunciation Key 







n.   
_Chiefly British_ The keeper of a public house or tavern.
A collector of public taxes or tolls in the ancient Roman Empire.
A collector of taxes or tribute from the public.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> I don't know but I've been around several people who pronounced "specific" as "pacific" and wasn't sure whether they had the right word with the wrong accent or visa versa.


 
Ray, I think you would find linguists who could explain that anomoly. I have seen that argument concerning the President's malaprop on nuclear. It is something about how the brain works that causes those displaced phonetics. 

When the President mispronounces nuclear, he sounds like an idiot; just as someone who mispronounces the largest body of water on the planet. But, there is a bit of lingusitics associated with these mispronounciations which you can and do occur naturally in a small portion of the population. 

I would think that the President would spend some time with a speech coach to correct the issue ... but, I think instead, perhaps, Karl Rove keeps him away from that, because it helps the President appear folksy.





			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Then again, there are several indications that the "group noun" (like "team") is going to no longer have the singular reference ("the team have" vrs "the team has"). We'll chalk that up to the same changes that cause people to have "an historic event" without having "an history book."


 
Team is a collective noun. When used to describe a group, it is properly paired with a singular verb. If you are referring to many teams, in the plural, we add the 's'.

Because collective nouns represent a single group made up of more than one members there can be times when it is used with plural verbs. This requires the members of the group to behave in ways that can not be explained in a single action; some of the team walked home and some took the bus. Walking and taking the bus are mutually exclusive in this description.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/collectivenoun.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> Do you mean "northeastern" liberal? Or is that a reference to some althetic team?


 
You are correct. Northeastern. That should be capitalized, shouldn't it?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party is insulting BECAUSE THEY SAY IT IS. People outside that group may not see how it is insulting but they feel it is.


 
Actually, it is insulting because that is how the first people who used the term intended it. 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005



> The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of _New Yorker_ magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the *enemy* the positive connotations of its chosen appellation."


 
In fact, I am going to expand on this thought .... 

How were the Pacific Islanders fighting World War II identified? Did we identify them as "Japanese" or was there some other word, or words, that were common at the time? I have heard some words that I will not mention because of their negative connotation. 

When did we stop using terms to dehumanize the decendents are Slavery? Did our forefathers choose those words because they uplifted people freed from slavery with the Emanicipation Proclaimation, or were they used to keep those people separate (less than) from our forebears.

I won't use those words publicly. Language is a powerful tool. And the words I am thinking of are hurtful words; spoken to inflict hurt on the group. 

If our African-American, contemporaries use those hurtful words as self-descriptive slang, it does not change the intent of those who originally spoke those words. They were used to inflict hurt and to demean.  Really, they aren't insulting becuase the Japanese and Japanese Americans feel they are insulting.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I would think that the President would spend some time with a speech coach to correct the issue ...


Not while he's in office.  He can do it later.  If he's being paid by my tax money he's going to be working, not getting voice lessons.


michaeledward said:


> Team is a collective noun. When used to describe a group, it is properly paired with a singular verb. If you are referring to many teams, in the plural, we add the 's'.
> 
> 
> Because collective nouns represent a single group made up of more than one members there can be times when it is used with plural verbs. This requires the members of the group to behave in ways that can not be explained in a single action; some of the team walked home and some took the bus. Walking and taking the bus are mutually exclusive in this description.


Yes.  That's exactly what I'm saying! (I did mean "collective noun" and I stand corrected)  The newspapers and newscasters have taken of late to say "the team have been" where they should have said "the team has been" almost exclusively.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> You are correct. Northeastern. That should be capitalized, shouldn't it?


I don't believe capitalization is correct here.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

Okay, if not the "democrat party" how about "that party of democrats?"  That should be less insulting...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> The newspapers and newscasters have taken of late to say "the team have been" where they should have said "the team has been" almost exclusively.


 
The newspapers and newscasters should be taken out and spanked. Are there no more editors? 

You would think, that when their trade is the English language, they would have command of it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Ray said:


> Okay, if not the "democrat party" how about "that party of democrats?" That should be less insulting...


 
The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.

"I am a democrat" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
"I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.


----------



## Ray (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.
> 
> "I am a democrat" is correct.
> "I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
> "I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.


Okay, if "that party of democrats" isn't insulting, howabout "that party of commie, pinko democrats?"

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.  I have a lot of respect for people who have different opinions than I do.  It's just that I can't see Hillary taking charge of the nation when she can't even keep her hubby under control. (Sorry again.  note to self: stop before you say something mean).


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The second is not insulting at all. It is proper use of the language.
> 
> "I am a democrat" is correct.
> "I am a member of the Democratic Party" is correct.
> "I am a member of the Democrat Party" is not correct.


 
I disagree.  The suffix -ic is makes the word an adjective.  One may call oneself a Democrat, but that doesn't magically make one democratic (see: Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of)  Just as it has been pointed out on other threads that just because one calls oneself a Christian, doesn't necessarily mean they are exhibiting Christ-like behavior.  

You may take it as an insult to have it suggested that you and your party are not as democratic as you believe, that doesn't mean others have to describe you as such if they feel the label doesn't fit.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I disagree. The suffix -ic is makes the word an adjective. One may call oneself a Democrat, but that doesn't magically make one democratic (see: Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of) Just as it has been pointed out on other threads that just because one calls oneself a Christian, doesn't necessarily mean they are exhibiting Christ-like behavior.
> 
> You may take it as an insult to have it suggested that you and your party are not as democratic as you believe, that doesn't mean others have to describe you as such if they feel the label doesn't fit.


 
Democratic Party is the proper noun describing the political affiliation for thirty five percent of the American voters. We are not using 'Democratic' as an adjective for the noun Party. One indication of the correct usage is the capital letter 'D'. 

Please review the earlier link to the Mediamatters article.



> The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat _n_" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic _adj_" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party _n_" or "Democrat _adj_".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.


 
Also, please note the use in the distributed text of the President's State of the Union speech. 



			
				Paragraph Three said:
			
		

> Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate  and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not.


 
The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...
a) He can't read.
b) He doesn't know any better.
c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.​


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...
> a) He can't read.​
> b) He doesn't know any better.​
> c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.​


 
It's probably C).  And like I said above, it's poor service to insult those for whom you work.  If I were you, I would choose not to vote for him in the next election.


----------



## crushing (Jan 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The President had the correct language in front of him. Please choose which argument you wish to make on his behalf ...a) He can't read.​
> b) He doesn't know any better.​
> c) He intended to insult 35% of the registered voters the United States.​


 
Given only those three choices the best answer is b).

Obviously he can read (recall The Pet Goat).  

Well, I guess it could be c), but if it were his intent to insult 35% of the registered voters by dropping the -ic, he failed miserably.  Do you think 2%, even 1% of those 35% to be insulted were?

Plus, if it weren't for the support of some of that 35%, members of the Republicanistic Party would be finding something wrong like that with President John Kerry's State of the Union address.  It would give them a break from President Carter's book.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> It's probably C). And like I said above, it's poor service to insult those for whom you work. If I were you, I would choose not to vote for him in the next election.


 
So now you are agree that there is a possibility that he intends to offer insult. 

Let's see what else you said above ... 



			
				CoryKS said:
			
		

> Like you said: just because you can't hear the dog whistle, doesn't mean it isn't being blown. Your initial post and the follow-up, like many of your posts, are written in a tone scornful toward the president. And that's fine, those are your views. But to demand - _demand_ - of the president that he address you respectfully is not only illogical but jawdroppingly hypocritical.


 
He is offering insult, which I point out and rebuke. And you say that my tone is scornful. I did not, by the way, demand that the President address me in any manner. I corrected his poor use of the English language, and pointed it out so that others might see his denigration of those whom he serves.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

crushing said:


> Given only those three choices the best answer is b).
> 
> Obviously he can read (recall The Pet Goat).
> 
> ...


 
With the facts in evidence, or other facts you might bring to light, can you offer additional options for our consideration. As I said, I have often been accused of being logical, overly logical, in fact. But I don't wish to leave any stone unturned. 

? ? ?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 25, 2007)

Dems getting upset over whether their party was called "democratic" or "Democrat" demonstrates in a perfect Zen Koan-like fashion as to why they have problems getting canidates elected.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2007)

I thought the proper term would be the posessive - 

The Democrats' approach - the Democrats' goal


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 25, 2007)

Wow, The Study has reached a new level in political silliness.

and on a more serious note, let's talk 'offense'  

You can not offend me; you can never offend me.  I can decide to tak offense at what you say, but that is my decision and my control and you cannot take that ability to decide and that ability to determine my reaction away from me.  Call me any insult or term of derision you will against me and I wil never say 'you have offended me' because you cannot offend me without my consent.  If I take offense at your words, then that is my decision, and often just my failing.  I have never seen a movie, heard a song, listened to a speech or beheld a picture that offended me; because they have no power to do so except what I grant them.

Nobody can offend you and nobody can insult you and nobody can deride you unless you allow them to.  Decide that in your own person  you will not take offense, and life will be a much more enjoyable place to be


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Wow, The Study has reached a new level in political silliness.
> 
> and on a more serious note, let's talk 'offense'
> 
> ...


 
Mr. O'Connor, you are correct. I can choose to be offended or not by Mr. Bush's actions. And I have interpreted his actions as offensive. That is my intepretation of his actions.

How do you explain *his actions*? 

Does he not comprehend the English language?
Is he unable to read the prepared text infront of him?
Is he *intending* to demean 35% of the electorate?
Is he sending dog-whistle code words to the 28% of Americans that still support his policies? 

You can find a transcript of the prepared text at any of numerous websites. You can also find the video of his actual spoken words. You can find dictionary definitions of the terms in the text and the terms he used. And with an 8th grade level of English composition you can discern the grammatical errors executed. 

Why did he do this?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 25, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I thought the proper term would be the posessive -
> 
> The Democrats' approach - the Democrats' goal


 
That term would be proper when describing the political ambitions of the Democratic Party. For instance; "The Democrats' goal is to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over the next eighteen months."

But the name of the affliation is the Democratic Party. It is a proper name. 

We call the navy's aerobatic demonstration team "The Blue Angels". That, too, is a proper name. Why might I intentionally misname that performance team to something else; such as "The Blue Fairies"? I could be doing that because I don't believe in 'Angels', but I do believe in 'Fairies'. Or I could be doing it because the term 'Fairie' has different connotations. Or I could be doing it because I am an idiot. Or I could be doing it to slander the swabbies.

No matter the motivation, calling something by a name other than its proper name is incorrect. If we do it once, it is a mistake, we can correct it. If we do it repeatedly, and we assume a minimum level of intelligence, I believe it is safe to look for other motivations. 

I recall an episode of Star Trek, in the second season, when Doctor Pulaski was interacting with the android - the episode was 'The Child'. 

Dr. Pulaski : Da-ta, look at this.
Android : DA-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : What? 
Android : My name. It is pronounced DA-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : Oh?
Android : You called me Da-ta.
Dr. Pulaski : What's the difference? 
Android : One is my name. The other is not. ​


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 25, 2007)

All I can say is 'wow'.

I'd say, you've got to be flippin' kidding me, but I might say it wrong ;p.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 25, 2007)

While I have often seen such errors - my father is a college English professor, and I have, in the past, helped him grade his students' work - I have better things to do with my time than be offended by George W. Bush and his mispronunciations of the English language.  If he chooses to look like an uneducated, illiterate boor, that is his choice; however, I see no reason why I, or any other person on the planet, Democrat or not, citizen or not, should waste the time and effort it takes to be offended by him.  

Rather, I will spend time on things that affect me more directly, such as finding ways to support one of my middle school students, a quiet, polite, A/B student who is my student aide but mostly does her homework in my room so she can get help on it, who told me today, in the same matter-of-fact fashion she uses to ask for help with her homework, that she won't be spending time with her father for her birthday, as her father is likely to be returned to jail shortly, for the second time this school year (the first time was for stealing his employer's truck; the upcoming incarceration will be, in her opinion, for parole violation; he has not managed to get a job, and has returned to using illegal drugs, along with his girlfriend), her cousins are about to be evicted by their joint grandmother, as their mother is also abusing illegal drugs, and grandmother is moving the children in with her and kicking the mother out, along with a court action to obtain legal custody of the children based on their mother's drug abuse and neglect, and, oh yes, her other grandmother is taking her skiing this weekend for her birthday.  She considers her life normal; after all, many of her friends have similar problems.  She turned 14 yesterday.  

I am involved in politics at a local level, I vote for both issues and offices, and I do the best I can to make my corner of the world a better place.  As I said, I have better things to do with my time than concern myself with GW Bush's inability, or unwillingness, to pronounce his native tongue correctly.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 25, 2007)

And there is always the possiblity that he is fumbling over his words because hes a lousy public speaker... and before the REPUBLICANS on board think I am insulting them, I mean public as in "the public" and not "Public" as in insulting version of "RePUBLICan" 

Look how <sarcasm>*FUN*</sarcasm> it is to have to be PC.​


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 25, 2007)

Lol, no worries Cryo, I'm pissed at him for calling it Repubs.. er wait, I'm not. Heh.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2007)

Kacey said:


> While I have often seen such errors - my father is a college English professor, and I have, in the past, helped him grade his students' work - I have better things to do with my time than be offended by George W. Bush and his mispronunciations of the English language. If he chooses to look like an uneducated, illiterate boor, that is his choice; however, I see no reason why I, or any other person on the planet, Democrat or not, citizen or not, should waste the time and effort it takes to be offended by him.
> 
> Rather, I will spend time on things that affect me more directly, such as finding ways to support one of my middle school students, a quiet, polite, A/B student who is my student aide but mostly does her homework in my room so she can get help on it, who told me today, in the same matter-of-fact fashion she uses to ask for help with her homework, that she won't be spending time with her father for her birthday, as her father is likely to be returned to jail shortly, for the second time this school year (the first time was for stealing his employer's truck; the upcoming incarceration will be, in her opinion, for parole violation; he has not managed to get a job, and has returned to using illegal drugs, along with his girlfriend), her cousins are about to be evicted by their joint grandmother, as their mother is also abusing illegal drugs, and grandmother is moving the children in with her and kicking the mother out, along with a court action to obtain legal custody of the children based on their mother's drug abuse and neglect, and, oh yes, her other grandmother is taking her skiing this weekend for her birthday. She considers her life normal; after all, many of her friends have similar problems. She turned 14 yesterday.
> 
> I am involved in politics at a local level, I vote for both issues and offices, and I do the best I can to make my corner of the world a better place. As I said, I have better things to do with my time than concern myself with GW Bush's inability, or unwillingness, to pronounce his native tongue correctly.


 
Kacey if there were more people like you, this world would be a better place


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 25, 2007)

_
I recall an episode of Star Trek, in the second season, when Doctor Pulaski was interacting with the android - the episode was 'The Child'. _

and Data was not offended by Dr.Pulaski usng the wrong pronunciation of his name.  He corrected her and moved on.

I suppose you could just shake your head, consider him an idiot and move on just mumbling '2 more years....', but by choosing to take offense at, to consider offensive, his actions is to give him control of your emotions and mental state, and he doesn't even know you exist or care what you think.  You have chosen to allow him to injure you and to wallow in that inujry, and he is none the worse for it.  

I *refuse* to allow people  who do not know of my existance and do not care for my personal well being any control of my mental well-being or emotional state; it's a waste of time and a waste of energy and hurts me and never touches them.  Life is too precious and too short and too full of opportunity to allow my mental sense of health and self-image to be controlled in such a capricious way as to let myself be offended by people to whom I am just an anonymous stranger


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 25, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> And there is always the possiblity that he is fumbling over his words because hes a lousy public speaker... and before the REPUBLICANS on board think I am insulting them, I mean public as in "the public" and not "Public" as in insulting version of "RePUBLICan"
> 
> Look how <sarcasm>*FUN*</sarcasm> it is to have to be PC.​



I thought the insult form of Rupublican was RepubliCANT.  

Or wait, maybe it was the combined form of Republicrat; that to me seems the worse of all on both sides because it indicates that both sides are really one and the same and there are not many better ways to insult someone then to compare him collectively to his enemy


----------



## tellner (Jan 25, 2007)

<Deleted - not a good thing to say>


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> <Deleted - not a good thing to say>



You tease : )


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I *refuse* to allow people who do not know of my existance and do not care for my personal well being any control of my mental well-being or emotional state;


 
How very nice for you, Mr. O'Connor.

I will note, that not only do you exercise great self-control when it comes to what others say, you also exercise great self-control toward answering questions, or not, which may offer insight; instead choosing to change the subject. 


You see, this post really has very little to do with me. And whether I am offended, or not. This post, this thread, and the ideas I am presenting have quiet a great deal to do with my President. Mind you, I didn't vote for him. I think he will be recognized as the worst President in American History. I think he has done a great deal of damage to the American experiment that will never be undone. I think he is criminally negligent in many of his actions concerning foreign affairs. But he is still my President. 

This thread is about *his actions*. I've asked these questions earlier. Some have answered. Some have quietly withdrawn from the conversation. Some have not answered. Here they are again.



michaeledward said:


> How do you explain *his actions*?
> 
> Does he not comprehend the English language?
> Is he unable to read the prepared text infront of him?
> ...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 26, 2007)

_This thread is about his actions._

Not quite, this thread is about your eraction to his actions.   You might not like that, but he didn't post here and he is not making this an issue in this community.

I don't mean to be condescending so this is just a comparison, but if my daughter came to me and said that a neighborhood kid had called her a bad name, I would be more concerned abot her emotional state because she is part of my family and I can do something to address her emotional state, but I can't do much about the kid and what he said.

You post a message about your offense about what you see as an insult from someone else.  Well, he's not a part of this comunity and I can't do much abot what he said, so the only part of that dynamic I can address is your reaction to it.  And frankly I find your reaction to the situation confusing at best and, wekk to be blunt, immature.  If being called a "democrat" were to be considered an insult, then you might have a point, but it's not.   So for someone to say "democrat" instead of "democratic" and to take it as an offense, whether intended or otherwise is... not rational.   (I use lower case intentionally since in the context of the original quote, since it is spoken, there is no capitalization) More to the point, even if it were *intended* as an insult, to take offense at it is *your* decision to make.

_How do you explain his actions?_

I don't.  In this context I don't care about his actions so I don't bother to attempt an explanation.  You have four possible interpretations.  *shrug*  Ok, maybe it's one of them or maybe it's all four or some combination.  If you want to find something stupid in his words and actions, there are may more flagrant examples he has to offer.

However, back to using lower case (since it was a spoken speech), if you read his words in the quote you have two phrases "democrat approach" and "democrat goals".  Now, to indicate that he is talking about a particular party and rephrase it as "democratic approach", etc...just adds to the confusion because then 
'democratic' sounds like an adjective describing the approach, the goals, etc... where he is attempting to use the word to mean the political party, or members of it. "democrat goal" in this case more clearly conveys "goal of the democrats" then "democratic goals" would have.

Or he's a complete idiot.  *shrug* In this context I don't care.

But if you already dislike someone and go looking to find insult in what they say, you can find it.  However, that's an awfully self-defeating way to live.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> _This thread is about his actions._
> 
> Not quite, this thread is about your eraction to his actions. You might not like that, but he didn't post here and he is not making this an issue in this community.
> 
> ...


 
Hear no evil
See no evil 
Speak no evil

Eh?


P.S. .... and did you *really* compare the President of the United States to a 'neighborhood kid'? That's sweet.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 26, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Not quite, this thread is about your eraction to his actions.
> 
> But if you already dislike someone and go looking to find insult in what they say, you can find it.  However, that's an awfully self-defeating way to live.



Both statements absolutely correct... could not have said it better myself.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 26, 2007)

Michael, you forgot to mention some things.

You realize that Bush wore a BLUE tie! It was CAROLINA BLUE! This is the color of UNC-Chapel Hill. Obviously he is slighting NC State and Duke, which are the primary rivals of UNC-Chapel Hill. He is CLEARLY slighting those fans and disenfranchising members of those schools. As a member of one of those schools, I am HIGHLY insulted.

You also realize that the German flag does not have blue, but the French and Russian flags do. This is a clear slight, and he is insulting millions of foreign patriots and ex-patriots living in our country. Many people have German heritage. How dare he commit such a blunder? Laura Bush asked him to wear a red tie, and his advisers recommended the same, but he obviously wanted to insult millions of people.



Of course, this is being ridiculous. However, I see just about the same amount of logic being used here. I must agree with FearlessFreep here. If you want to find some reason for being slighted, you will find it. If it's a tie, a mild verbal slip, his hairdo, you'll find something to whine about. I find your complaint about "democrat" just as silly as most people find a complaint about his tie color. But, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 26, 2007)

Talk about not answering.

_Hear no evil
See no evil 
Speak no evil_

No.  Just don't assume evil and don't go looking to prove evil.

Long time ago, I took it as an assumption that nobody wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says "I think I'll be a jerk today".  So if someone is acting like a jerk, I assume that they actually have a motivation that makes sense to them .  It may be the wrong motivation, it may be a bad action from that motivation, it may be bad judgement, etc...but I assume that it at least makes sense to them.  So I can treat them like a jerk, or I can try to find out what their motivation is.  I may disagree with it, but it helps me to understand why they've done what they've done and I usually assume that it's not simply "to be a jerk for the sake of it".

It really helps when someone says "blah" and it could mean "something horrible and vile" or "something ok but poorly spoken" .  I tend to assume the second.

_

P.S. .... and did you really compare the President of the United States to a 'neighborhood kid'? That's sweet._

Well, from that point of view then I compared you to a little girl lacking the emotional maturity to handle being picked on and needing parental guidance.  And taken that way, you can take *that* as an insult.

However that's taking the meaning far beyond it's intention.  It was simply to say that there are those in my family and those out of my family and when someone in my family complains of the words or actions of someone outside of my family, I can't do much about those outside the family but I can do something about those inside my family, so I address what I can and not what I can't.  Similarly, you are part of this community, President Bush is not.  I can't do anything about what he said, I can try to address your reaction to it.  That's all that was intended but if you choose to find hidden meaning or insult in it, then I can't help you there


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> If you want to find some reason for being slighted, you will find it. If it's a tie, a mild verbal slip, his hairdo, you'll find something to whine about. I find your complaint about "democrat" just as silly as most people find a complaint about his tie color. But, whatever floats your boat.


 
Please explain what you believe the President intended?

Is he unable to read a prepared text?
Is he unable to comprehend proper use of the English language?
Is he trying to offend the 35% of registered American voters who are members of the Democratic Party?





I have cited my sources. You are just accusing me of 'taking offense'. That, by definition, is an ad hominem attack; an attack 'to the man'. But whether I take offense or not ... how do you explain his language?


----------



## Ray (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I didn't vote for him. I think he will be recognized as the worst President in American History.


I voted for him.  I don't think that he will be recognized as the worst Pres, a pres would have to go pretty far for that.  Much farther than Clinton, Nixon, Carter, Buchanan, Grant are some that immediately spring to mind and there are others.  But YOU might just personally recognize him as the worst (for whatever reason).  

I do have an issue with his stance on illegal aliens and "guest workers."  If these jobs are jobs that pay poorly, that Americans won't do, then we should find out if that's true or not.  Either the jobs will go undone and Americans will be okay with it, or the price (wage) will rise to the point that (some) Americans will do the work.


michaeledward said:


> I think he has done a great deal of damage to the American experiment that will never be undone. I think he is criminally negligent in many of his actions concerning foreign affairs. But he is still my President.


Certainly not criminally negligent by US law.


michaeledward said:


> This thread is about *his actions*. I've asked these questions earlier. Some have answered. Some have quietly withdrawn from the conversation. Some have not answered. Here they are again.


long is the night to him who is awake...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Long time ago, I took it as an assumption that nobody wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says "I think I'll be a jerk today". So if someone is acting like a jerk, I assume that they actually have a motivation that makes sense to them . It may be the wrong motivation, it may be a bad action from that motivation, it may be bad judgement, etc...but I assume that it at least makes sense to them. So I can treat them like a jerk, or I can try to find out what their motivation is. I may disagree with it, but it helps me to understand why they've done what they've done and I usually assume that it's not simply "to be a jerk for the sake of it".


 
Okay, then, what motivation do you find for the President's behavior?

I'll give to you, that you are speaking about me, but the reasoning must go in both directions, eh, if it is to be 'reasoning'.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 26, 2007)

*sigh* I feel this is a great waste of time. You've convinced yourself and can not possibly be wrong, however, since you asked...



michaeledward said:


> Please explain what you believe the President intended?


I believe he intended nothing. He made a minor English gaff. That's it.



> Is he unable to read a prepared text?


I've given quite a few speeches. I have not always said exactly what is written. As a matter of fact, I have NEVER said exactly what is written. I've made contractions, I've made errors. I've rearranged things on the fly. Would it have made you happier if he read directly from his paper rather than addressing his audience? Have you gone over every speech made in congress this year or by past presidents and checked every grammatical error or analyzed every devience from the prepared speech? I imagine you would find quite a few. As a matter of fact, why not study every written speech for grammatical error. I'm sure you will find some. I had an English teacher that would read the NYT with a red marker. It was sick the amount of errors she would find. these originated from trained professionals using the English language as their trade. Should we expect perfection from Bush? If you are so upset over a minor error like this, you obviously are.



> Is he unable to comprehend proper use of the English language?


Are you able to understand English? Do you not realize that many people speak the way he spoke? I would have said the same thing and I've got more education then he does. Is the phrase he used unintellegible to you? I have the intellegence to understand a persons comments when a minor verbal gaff is made. I imagine you do too.



> Is he trying to offend the 35% of registered American voters who are members of the Democratic Party?


No, and its ridiculous to think otherwise. As stated before, you hate the man. You look for ANY possible thing, even something as petty as this.



> I have cited my sources. You are just accusing me of 'taking offense'. That, by definition, is an ad hominem attack; an attack 'to the man'. But whether I take offense or not ... how do you explain his language?


Ad hominem nothing. I am not "accusing" you like a criminal. I am oberserving. You have obviously taken offense and implied some wrong. Do you dare say otherwise?

I don't need to explain his language. Its understandable by anyone with a decent grasp of English. As stated before, its a common error. Like confusing their and there, faint and feint. GET OVER IT. We are all sorry he is not the most brilliant scholar of the English language.

Frankly, I can't prove his intentions. Neither can you. We don't know what is going on in his mind. I also think our justice system attempts to prove guilt rather than innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. So, until you can pry into Bush's mind or force out a confession, its nothing other than speculation. You can cry about it, but thats all it is. Speculation. On both sides.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> 1. Is he unable to read a prepared text?
> 2. Is he unable to comprehend proper use of the English language?
> 3. Is he trying to offend the 35% of registered American voters who are members of the Democratic Party?


I don't know Michael, I'm just observing here, but at first blush, I'd say that your President has amply demonstrated that the first two are chronic shortcomings of his....


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 26, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> I don't know Michael, I'm just observing here, but at first blush, I'd say that your President has amply demonstrated that the first two are chronic shortcomings of his....



I don't think he will ever be heralded as the most brilliant speech giver in history, but I think the man is literate enough to read LOL


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I believe he intended nothing. He made a minor English gaff. That's it.


 
Thank you. A clear straight forward answer to a simple question.

How many times should we allow the President to make the same verbal gaff, before we start to consider it something other than a gaff?





			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Ad hominem nothing. I am not "accusing" you like a criminal. I am oberserving. You have obviously taken offense and implied some wrong. Do you dare say otherwise?


 


			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> there is nothing a logical thinking person can say to change your mind,


 
The accusation you extend to me is not of criminal indictment, but rather an accusation against logical principles. Something from which you, in the earlier post, ascribed to yourself.

You claim that "I am slighted", that "I'll find some reason to whine". In attributing those attitudes and actions to me, when the comment and question I pose is about the Presidents language - which you have agreed was an error: "English gaff" - is indeed an attack on my credibility. By attacking me - I am slighted, I'll whine - you attempt to decrease my credibility. If I am not credible,  my question is not credible. This is the logical definition of an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 26, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I don't think he will ever be heralded as the most brilliant speech giver in history, but I think the man is literate enough to read LOL


Well, approximately, perhaps. *snicker*


----------



## Ray (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> By attacking me - I am slighted, I'll whine - you attempt to decrease my credibility. If I am not credible,  my question is not credible.


My, my...it's all about you isn't it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

Ray said:


> My, my...it's all about you isn't it.


 
When having to explain a basic principle of logical arguments, yes, it is. That is the definition of 'ad hominem'. 

However, I can not discern the 'tone' of your post, maybe you are being wry. Which I can appreciate. 

Maybe you misinterpret the text because of a lack of quotes around mrhnau's words. I did not use direct quotes in the post, because I did paraphrase his language. But the language I reference can be found here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=708940&postcount=68



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Of course, this is being ridiculous. However, I see just about the same amount of logic being used here. I must agree with FearlessFreep here. If you want to find some reason for being *slighted*, you will find it. If it's a tie, a mild verbal slip, his hairdo, you'll find something to *whine* about. I find your complaint about "democrat" just as silly as most people find a complaint about his tie color. But, whatever floats your boat.


 
But, I am waiting for other possible reasons to be discussed. 

I have offered:

President Bush is incapable of reading a prepared text.
President Bush does not understand the use of proper nouns.
President Bush is slighting the members of the Democratic Party.

Others have suggested (and I think I have once or twice):

President Bush speaks with an accent.
President Bush made a verbal gaff. (Which I am disinclined to accept because he has similarly mispoke several times before)



You know, I did not vote for the guy, so I don't have to come to terms with the fact that I voted for someone who fills one of the above discriptions. 

I hope, Ray, that your post was wry, ironic, sarcasting or humorous. I'll take it that way.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 26, 2007)

> I have offered:
> 
> President Bush is incapable of reading a prepared text.
> President Bush does not understand the use of proper nouns.
> ...



let's add more possiblities.

President Bush's universal translator is on the fritz.

President Bush's  symbiotic alien embedded in his spine s'been drinking again.

President Bush makes verbal gaffes for everything-so he felt the Dems would be offended if he didn't boff their party's name as well. 

Dick Cheney was drinking water each time Bush mentioned the Dems... :ultracool


----------



## crushing (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Mr. Bush, in the State of the Union address, again slurred the Democratic Party by referring to it as the "Democrat majority".
> 
> That Mr. Bush shows such contempt of, at minimum, a third of America, speaks volumes, I think.
> 
> ...


 
Since this horse hasn't been beaten enough yet. . .


After re-reading your first two posts I noticed that when you quoted President Bush, he didn't include the word 'Party' either.  Does that make a difference?  Does it make it even more insulting to you that he didn't just drop the '-ic', but '-ic Party'?  Just curious.

Anyway, as I was saying; he didn't say 'Democrat Party majority', he said 'democrat majority', which may include the independent.  If this were the case he would be implying that the members of the Republicanistic Party are not democrats.  Lower-case democrats being those that advocate for democracy and social equality.

Basically, in his state of the union address Mr. Bush (to take a common media phrase) admits that Publican Party members are not advocates of democracy, nor do they stand for social justice!  Hmmm.  It appears you and the President have found some common understanding.


----------



## kyo sa nim (Jan 26, 2007)

The only shame to be embraced at present should be that of the traitors in Washington who seek to undermine American servicemen and women (God Bless them all!) by putting forth worthless resolutions, the only effect of which will be damaging troop morale and giving aid and comfort to our enemies!


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

kyo sa nim said:


> The only shame to be embraced at present should be that of the traitors in Washington who seek to undermine American servicemen and women... by putting forth worthless resolutions, the only effect of which will be damaging troop morale and giving aid and comfort to our enemies!


 
This is a discussion for another thread. However, it would be no simple thing for me to accuse members of the United States Congress of being traitors. It would be a very long time indeed before I accused a former Undersecretary of the Navy of being a traitor. 

This thread is about the fact that language actually means something. Such accusations should not be cast about lightly.


----------



## Ray (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When having to explain a basic principle of logical arguments, yes, it is. That is the definition of 'ad hominem'.


If wry means witty, then I'll take credit for it.

However much you don't like the Pres, and people have reason not to (while others have reason to) the feeling I get from this thread is that your dislike is like the dislike some people who wash their hands until the skin falls off because they dislike germs.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 26, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## kyo sa nim (Jan 26, 2007)

I could not agree more vehemently that words do in fact have meaning.  That is why I take issue with the irresponsible use of it, particularly in writing.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

Ray said:


> If wry means witty, then I'll take credit for it.
> 
> However much you don't like the Pres, and people have reason not to (while others have reason to) the feeling I get from this thread is that your dislike is like the dislike some people who wash their hands until the skin falls off because they dislike germs.


 
Not at all. As I see it, we are stuck with him. I do think he should be impeached. But, after the most recent impeachment, I doubt Congress will exercise its constitutionally mandated responsibility. 

I just have to keep repeating the premise, because others keep attempting to change the subject, to more or less effectiveness. 


But ... personally ... what is most frustrating is the blind support being extended to the President. The seeming implication that there is no possible way the President could be acting in a mean or nasty way. The insinuation that the problem is all mine, and not what the President is intending with his language. 

And most importantly, from my point of view, is that in the future, when the President speaks with this language, people hear it not as a verbal gaff, but as an intentional slur. In my opinion, President Bush is a nasty, vengeful, petty man. In this, he takes after his mother. But, he was elected because more Americans wanted to have a beer with him than Vice President Gore or Senator Kerry. These days, of course, fewer people want to have a beer with the President. 

I will point out that President Clinton's approval rating on the day of his impeachment was twice the current approval rating of President Bush.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

kyo sa nim said:


> I could not agree more vehemently that words do in fact have meaning. That is why I take issue with the irresponsible use of it, particularly in writing.


 
Are you arguing that the elected representatives serving in our legislature should not pay heed to their consitutents? Last I checked, that arguement directly opposes the form of our Constitution Republic.


----------



## Ray (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But ... personally ... what is most frustrating is the blind support being extended to the President.


The implication that I blindly support the Pres; in contrast to you, the smarter and more knowing?


michaeledward said:


> The insinuation that the problem is all mine, and not what the President is intending with his language.


While he should make every attempt to communicate his meanings without any chance of them being misconstrued; there is a responsibility on the part of the listenee.


michaeledward said:


> But, he was elected because more Americans wanted to have a beer with him than Vice President Gore or Senator Kerry.


You think Kerry speaks more clearly and is better understood?  Everytime the man says somehthing he has to issue corrections that begin "what I meant..." because he has no idea how to put a thought to words.



michaeledward said:


> I will point out that President Clinton's approval rating on the day of his impeachment was twice the current approval rating of President Bush.


Not in the Albrechtsen household.


----------



## kyo sa nim (Jan 26, 2007)

I am not suggesting any such thing.  Interestingly, bills, or in this case resolutions, originating in the Senate are significantly less likely to represent the will of the Senators constituents, as it appears that Senators seem to believe that they are equal to the President when it comes to setting policy.  Which clearly under our constitution they are not.

I have much more willingness to grant leeway to Reresentatives, if they are in fact acting on the wishes of their constituents, rather than their own personal agendas.  Which unfortunately, when it comes to matters of national defense and security, I have my doubts.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

Ray said:


> The implication that I blindly support the Pres; in contrast to you, the smarter and more knowing?
> While he should make every attempt to communicate his meanings without any chance of them being misconstrued; there is a responsibility on the part of the listenee.
> You think Kerry speaks more clearly and is better understood? Everytime the man says somehthing he has to issue corrections that begin "what I meant..." because he has no idea how to put a thought to words.
> 
> Not in the Albrechtsen household.


 
No implication is intended in your direction on this thread. There are others on this thread where that is, indeed, he implication I intend to portray. 

As for my responsibilities as a 'listenee', I have sought out other conclusions which I should be able to hear, but the responses to that inquiry have been short in coming. 

Mr. Kerry's mouth often gets out in front of his words. But, he has been held to a completely different standard than the current administration, I think.

While the Albrechsten household may have differing opinions, my ascertation of approval ratings is based in scientific samples.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

kyo sa nim said:


> I am not suggesting any such thing. Interestingly, bills, or in this case resolutions, originating in the Senate are significantly less likely to represent the will of the Senators constituents, as it appears that Senators seem to believe that they are equal to the President when it comes to setting policy. Which clearly under our constitution they are not.
> 
> I have much more willingness to grant leeway to Reresentatives, if they are in fact acting on the wishes of their constituents, rather than their own personal agendas. Which unfortunately, when it comes to matters of national defense and security, I have my doubts.


 
Perhaps you can explain to me how the Senate is somehow unequal to the Adminstrative branch of government. I have often heard the term 'co-equal' bandied about when it comes to the organization of our government. And, if I recall, it seems to me that Article I of the Constitution places a great deal of power in the Congress when it comes warfare.

I believe it is Section 8 that tells us that:

"Congress shall have the power ... to declare war ... and make rules concerning captures on land and water" 

... and ...

"to make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

You know, it would be so much easier if we didn't have that damned Constitution spelling out the responsibilities of our governance. 

Just in case you haven't read it recently .... 

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 26, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Not quite, this thread is about your eraction



HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE MIKE OF HAVING AN ERACTION!  That, sir, is offensive to every human being with eractile disfuction!

I now return you to your previously silly thread already in progress.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, I am waiting for other possible reasons to be discussed.
> 
> I have offered:
> 
> ...


 
I'll offer another: President Bush is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's.

His conflation of words-that is the creation of new ones, often by combining two, or adding a suffix-is a hallmark symptom of Alzheimer's, as are his annoyingly inappropriate facial tics and smiles. I'll bet his memory goes the way of Reagan's, too, once the hearings start during the next administration.....
....howzzat fer cynicalism?


----------



## Carol (Jan 26, 2007)

"cynicalism" :lfao: :rofl:


----------



## bydand (Jan 26, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE MIKE OF HAVING AN ERACTION!  That, sir, is offensive to every human being with eractile disfuction!
> 
> I now return you to your previously silly thread already in progress.



Mike has an eraction?  I knew he liked these kind of debates, but jeeze Louise don't broadcast it. 


AS for the debate that is raging on like a train wreck here (just can't seem to tear my eyes away from the new posts no matter how hard I try), this is one where I really am riding the fence like a Mudwump.  My Mug is on one side and my wump is on the other.  I can see both sides, but don't see the big deal on either side.  One side is going to call it intentional and the other is going to defend "W", with neither side absolutily knowing for sure if they are right.  Plenty of speculation and _almost_ positive knowledge, but without being "W" we can and will never really know 100%.  He sure in the heck isn't going to join the forum and post what he meant.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

Elder999 - I could agree with the possibility of mental disease. I was unable to recognize it in Reagan at the time. In hindsight, there seemed to be indications for the last two or three years of his term. 

bydand - I am trying to figure out 'what' the other side might be: that the President is illiterate, or that the President is nasty. Who is defending those positions?


----------



## bydand (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> bydand - I am trying to figure out 'what' the other side might be: that the President is illiterate, or that the President is nasty. Who is defending those positions?



I just meant that whatever position they take in defending "what" he meant or didn't mean.  I don't really give a rats tuckus what position they are holding personally, illiterate, nasty, or distracted by the need to wee in a hurry.  It makes no difference in the debate, that side will hold to the position that he didn't mean it in that manner, or that the word usuage is just fine; and your side will hold the position he is a blundering idiot, or a coniving bastard.

Personally I will just sit on the sidelines here and watch with morbid curiosity what argument will be pulled out next from both sides. 
opcorn::cheers::wavey:


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 26, 2007)

bydand said:


> Personally I will just sit on the sidelines here and watch with morbid curiosity what argument will be pulled out next from both sides.



I think hes from Omnicron Persei 8 and Democrat Majority is proper Omnicronion... and he just let it slip that he wasnt a puny earthling.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2007)

bydand said:


> I just meant that whatever position they take in defending "what" he meant or didn't mean. I don't really give a rats tuckus what position they are holding personally, illiterate, nasty, or distracted by the need to wee in a hurry. It makes no difference in the debate, that side will hold to the position that he didn't mean it in that manner, or that the word usuage is just fine; and your side will hold the position he is a blundering idiot, or a coniving bastard.
> 
> Personally I will just sit on the sidelines here and watch with morbid curiosity what argument will be pulled out next from both sides.


 
And, I just saw this . . . 

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...2007/01/white-house-manipulates-sotu-web.html

It seems that the White House web site is updating the official transcript to reflect the Presidents pronounciation. It's a shame that they distributed printed copies before hand, it kinda kills the plausible deniability. 

And I would more argue that 'my side' ... I acceed to your description here ... is that he was purposefully and intentionally disrespectful to the 35% of American voters who have registered with the Democratic Party.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I acceed to your description here ... is that he was purposefully and intentionally disrespectful to the 35% of American voters who have registered with the Democratic Party.



Could be... Could Be.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 27, 2007)

elder999 said:


> I'll offer another: President Bush is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's.
> 
> His conflation of words-that is the creation of new ones, often by combining two, or adding a suffix-is a hallmark symptom of Alzheimer's, as are his annoyingly inappropriate facial tics and smiles. I'll bet his memory goes the way of Reagan's, too, once the hearings start during the next administration.....
> ....howzzat fer cynicalism?


Could also be a result of the alcohol and drug abuse in his younger years.  Like father like daughters, eh? *snicker*


----------



## grydth (Jan 28, 2007)

elder999 said:


> I'll offer another: President Bush is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's.
> 
> His conflation of words-that is the creation of new ones, often by combining two, or adding a suffix-is a hallmark symptom of Alzheimer's, as are his annoyingly inappropriate facial tics and smiles. I'll bet his memory goes the way of Reagan's, too, once the hearings start during the next administration.....
> ....howzzat fer cynicalism?



No, I don't think its Alzheimers at all..... I watched my father die of that a few short years ago, and I've seen others taken by it, too. You watch a guy who was a highly decorated maribe fighter pilot and an airline exec go that way and it makes a definite impression.

Alzheimers is degenerative - sometimes fast, some slow with a few plateaus in there. Bush is not deteriorating - in point of fact he has never been able to speak well publicly and has always made gaffs. Its just that after 9/11, he sounded like 'every man' speaking his rage at al Qaeda. That was refreshing after Bill Clinton who could talk the shingles off a house but seemes a bit slick about it.

Let's not give Bush a disease crutch to lean on. Plain and simple fact is that he's gotten himself into a situation that he's not smart enough or resolute enough to get himself out of. He's fought a terribly destructive war, but a war just the same of half measures. Iraq was supposed to be a trap for "them", but its become that for us. Like the olde 10 Years After Song, Bush "Would love to change the world, but I don't know what to do."

I think I'd beat most of you on a cynical scale.... by the time candidates of either side get to this level, the likes of Abramson or Soros hold 2d mortgages on their souls.

No personal offense taken, by the way - you don't seem at all like those *** who make cheap humor about awful diseases.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 28, 2007)

grydth said:


> Bush is not deteriorating - in point of fact he has never been able to speak well publicly and has always made gaffs. Its just that after 9/11, he sounded like 'every man' speaking his rage at al Qaeda. That was refreshing after Bill Clinton who could talk the shingles off a house but seemes a bit slick about it.


 

Actually, if you listen to his campaign speeches from his election to Governor of Texas, you'd find that the gaffes were fewer and further between, and that there was none of the confabulation-yes, that's the actual word-of words, or creating altogether new ones. Indeed, his vocabulary was a great deal clearer and more lucid. Further, in the last two years he's actually shown some improvement in this area, almost as though he were receiving medication......


----------



## grydth (Jan 29, 2007)

This is subjective to a certain point. I never have been impressed with his speaking ability, and the other party has been putting out stuff - including calendars - for quite some time.

My point is that we should avoid forum medical diagnoses when we don't have the evidence. (That's a dangerous road in any event, as other conditions besides dementia can produce these 'symptoms'). 

Absent proof to the contrary, I'll stick with my beliefs - that this guy is acting confused because he's in over his head, has squandered his capital and doesn't know what to do next.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

A couple of thoughts; 

I'm not certain that the description of 'the other party' is an accurate description for who is 'putting out' material about Mr. Bush. I think there are many entrepeneurial people who are glad to make a buck from Mr. Bush's challenges with the English Language. Some of those individuals may be members of the Democratic Party; others may belong to other political parties, or be unaffiliated. If we are going to be cautious in describing medical symptons, should we not exercise the same care when describing political activities?

Also, I am not certain that I read a medical diagnosis in the statements made by elder999. I have been pretty forceful on this thread seeking an explaination for the President's behavior. I have offered a few of my own and asked for input from others. elder999's statements provide alternate explainations from my own. He recognized symptom that fit under a medical condition, as has shesulsa. Neither poster has excluded other conditions that present similar symptons. Niether poster has made a definitive argument for the cause of the behavior in question. They have presented possibilities. Each of us can take those possible explainations to our own opinion.

No one here is stating that your opinion; that Mr. Bush's behavior is not caused by Alzheimers Disease, is invalid. And I don't believe anyone has offered a medical diagnosis.

I think, we are, collectively, kicking the can down the road, in speculation to a behavior that I have described as offensive.


----------



## Ray (Jan 29, 2007)

This morning on Fox & Friends (Monday Jan 29) a democrat named Shumer was a guest.  He a senator? or something, he was pushing his book.  I'm pretty sure that he referred to the "democrat party." 

But then again, it was early and I was trying to make sure my socks matched, so I could have mis-heard.


----------



## grydth (Jan 29, 2007)

Ray said:


> This morning on Fox & Friends (Monday Jan 29) a democrat named Shumer was a guest. He a senator? or something, he was pushing his book. I'm pretty sure that he referred to the "democrat party."
> 
> But then again, it was early and I was trying to make sure my socks matched, so I could have mis-heard.



Chuck Schumer is a Democratic Senator from New York. While I differ with him on gun control (which can be debated on anothet thread!!), he's a hell of a New Yorker and a fine Senator. He was one of the strategists behind their successful campaign in 2006. Very smart, very quick thinking guy.

Its a miracle if all three of us get out of here with matching socks - if you have a secret on making that happen, that knowledge would be more precious than any martial arts hidden techniques!


----------



## grydth (Jan 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> A couple of thoughts;
> 
> I'm not certain that the description of 'the other party' is an accurate description for who is 'putting out' material about Mr. Bush. I think there are many entrepeneurial people who are glad to make a buck from Mr. Bush's challenges with the English Language. Some of those individuals may be members of the Democratic Party; others may belong to other political parties, or be unaffiliated. If we are going to be cautious in describing medical symptons, should we not exercise the same care when describing political activities?
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with you kicking that can - but others of us can kick, too. You have a right to debate and dissent, but so do I.

Alzheimers is a medical diagnosis. 

I object to malefactors of every stripe - from street thug to elected official - being able to hide behind pseudo medical diagnoses (read-excuses). Whenever anyone gets caught stealing, raping or starting wars, its always, um, like, alcoholism or sleep apnea or ADD or dementia or too many cupcakes that's to blame........ how about that maybe criminals are just bad people and Bush's just become a poor President on his own (de)merits and should be fully responsible?

There's a cottage industry that's grown up in this country devoted to digging dirt and ridiculing officials of both parties. If you want to look at the Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaugh's, Rosie O'Donnell's, Michael Moore's, Barbara Streisand's and a million more on each side as being 'unaligned', well.......... the can's now on the way back to you.


----------



## crushing (Jan 29, 2007)

MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, in the speech, you spoke about the Democrats. You said, you congratulated the Democrat majority. And I notice your prepared text said Democratic majority. I surely think that you know that for the Democrats, they think when you say Democrat, it's like fingernails on the blackboard. They don't like it. They like you to say Democratic.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Well, that was an oversight then. I mean, I'm not trying to needle. Look, I went into the hall saying we can work together and I was very sincere about it. I didn't even know I did it. 

From the full transcript of the interview of President Bush by Juan Williams at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7065633


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

crushing said:


> MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, in the speech, you spoke about the Democrats. You said, you congratulated the Democrat majority. And I notice your prepared text said Democratic majority. I surely think that you know that for the Democrats, they think when you say Democrat, it's like fingernails on the blackboard. They don't like it. They like you to say Democratic.
> 
> PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Well, that was an oversight then. I mean, I'm not trying to needle. Look, I went into the hall saying we can work together and I was very sincere about it. I didn't even know I did it.
> 
> From the full transcript of the interview of President Bush by Juan Williams at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7065633


 
Yes, I just heard this on the radio. 

It would have been even better if Mr. Williams was prepared with an appropriate follow up ... such as "_Mr. President you used the same phrase many times during the campaign season. Can we take from this that in the future you will be more careful with your language."_

_You'll notice, nowhere in the President's reply an apology or an offer to try and do better next time. A similar response would not be acceptable if my daughter offered it. I would expect recognition of offense given and a pledge to try and do better next time. I expect I am not alone in those expectations.
_ 
Also in that interview, the President made a few references to his new strategy. As I recall, he answered a question from a service member from Minnesota or Michigan with that term. 

A great follow, by a professional reported would have been.

_Mr. President, help me out here. You mention this new strategy and asked for us to 'give it a chance'. Can you please just tell us; what was the old strategy? What were the signals that told you that strategy wasn't working? How is the new strategy different from the old strategy? What markers should we look for as indications that we are moving toward success?"_

When reporting is about providing air time for the interviewee to present their case, challenge free, it is actually propaganda, and not reporting at all. Isn't it?


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 29, 2007)

Hm, what about the inference that one party is Democratic... would that then state the other main party isn't? Wouldn't that be a slight on every other party out there?

I think maybe I'm just amazed that there's 112 posts including mine on this.

Ignore this one in fact, I'm sorry for posting.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> Hm, what about the inference that one party is Democratic... would that then state the other main party isn't? Wouldn't that be a slight on every other party out there?
> 
> I think maybe I'm just amazed that there's 112 posts including mine on this.
> 
> Ignore this one in fact, I'm sorry for posting.


 

That is the 'reasonable sounding' objection that some in the echo chamber use. 

Again, the term Democratic Party is the proper name of the political organization which is derived from the 'Democratic-Republican Party' of the early 19th century. I don't know that anyone in the Democratic Party that would suggest the Republican Party is not democratic. 

The source of this phrase in its usage being discussed is as described; it is to "deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation". It is curious that the originators of this phrase in the described usage refer to their countrymen as enemies. 

One list of references can be found here: 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

It is a place for one to start their own research.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 29, 2007)

You've made your point - Bush is inarticulate.   You don't like it.   You don't like his "explanations".  He's a rotten speaker - this is news to no one.  Continuing to point it out is:deadhorse


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

In memory and rememberance of Barbaro ... 


Just surfing a bit in the hotel, and I find this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070130/D8MVB92O0.html

It seems the ability to use the proper name of the opposition goes beyond just the Presidents verbal skills. The last two sentences of the article are:



> Bush plans to speak to the House Democratic Caucus at its conference this weekend in Virginia.
> 
> On the president's schedule, that event is referred to as the "House Democrat Conference."


 
I am dubious that the President types up his own schedule.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 29, 2007)

I think it is easy to make the mistake of calling it the Democrat party. Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans. Members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats. It is easy to mistake the name of the party as the Democrat party. I did -- in high school, but I did. I'm guessing that there's a LOT of people out there still doing the same thing.

It goes both ways. But one party cannot find anything substantial to argue, so they choose this.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> It goes both ways. But one party cannot find anything substantial to argue, so they choose this.


 
substantial to argue?

That's just sweet. 

Our senator, by the way, voted against a minimum wage that pays more than $206.00 per full time employment.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 29, 2007)

Kacey said:


> You've made your point - Bush is inarticulate. You don't like it. You don't like his "explanations". He's a rotten speaker - this is news to no one. Continuing to point it out is:deadhorse


 

:asian:


----------

