Mr. President - It is the 'Democratic' Party

[crushing]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-

 

[kyo sa nim]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

"cynicalism" :lfao: :rofl:

 

[bydand]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.