Mr. President - It is the 'Democratic' Party

[FearlessFreep]

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]

<Deleted - not a good thing to say>

 

[FearlessFreep]

<Deleted - not a good thing to say>

You tease : )

 

[michaeledward]

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 Some have quietly withdrawn from the conversation.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.

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?
...
Why did he do this?

 

[FearlessFreep]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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)

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