|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108133] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 10:20   |
 |
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
| SEAL |
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?...
|
In grammatical terms, I never said it was correct. I already understood the alternative meaning of that segment of the speech, but it would be sheer idiocy to interpret it any other way. As I said, "and neither do we" makes well enough sense if you would just realize that by referring to its antecedent in this way, he means to anticipate and counteract such attempts. It was worded this way because the speech is clearly trying to make it memorable by establishing a parallel line of thought.
I concede that that particular segment could've been worded better, as it does stop to make you think. If you listened more closely, however, in practical terms, the speech makes perfect sense.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108175] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 15:18 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
He knows and anyone with a brain knew what Bush was talking about.
Bush haters like him take the quote out of context and put a different meaning on it in an attempt to make him look bad.
I can see a double meaning in it, but as I said before , anyone with a brain would know which meaning he intended for it.
|
How is this quote out of context? People don't take Bush's linguistic mistakes out of context, because they're linguisitic mistakes. And he makes a ton of them. Which doesn't exactly make me think highly of him as an intellectual. However, I would prefer to discuss Bush's incompetence in terms of policies instead of him talking like a fool.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108191] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 16:46 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE, interpretted his words as in Bush's Administration is thinking of how they can personally harm this country. None of you is so ignorant that you actually thought he was looking to attack the US. You laugh because his words could possibly mean something that he didn't intend to convey. Period. None of you actually interpretted his words the bad way. None of you watched or read that speech and said "OMG THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO KILL US! MAN THE BATTLE STATIONS!"
If you did, then you are a real fucking idiot and you need mental help.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108219] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 18:37 |
|
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
Probably to make both sides happy.
Edit:
| SEAL |
-He made a profound and memorable statement that implied that we need to think like a terrorist to catch a terrorist...
|
lol, I would not go as far as "profound and memorable," but that is what he tried to imply. But of course, I agree with you that this has not turned out well.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108242] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 22:58 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Just because some spokesman said that, doesn't make it true. I believe that he did say what he meant, grammatically, but there are better ways he may have said it. I wouldn't say that it's a lack of intelligence or anything sinister like that. If the press hadn't made such a big deal about it, I don't think it would have even got this far.
Case in point... Kerry fell skiing and fell off his bicycle... neither story got into left-wing media and instead stayed on Drudge Report. Then Bush falls from his mountain bike on a rough downhill trail and Kerry pokes fun at him. This makes it into the media. If Bush's not-the-best phrasing got into the news, shouldn't it also be news when Kerry falls off his bike?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108254] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 01:01 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I agree. It isn't, in fact, a big deal and should have never gotten this far.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108275] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 04:22 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Case in point... Kerry fell skiing and fell off his bicycle... neither story got into left-wing media and instead stayed on Drudge Report. Then Bush falls from his mountain bike on a rough downhill trail and Kerry pokes fun at him. This makes it into the media. If Bush's not-the-best phrasing got into the news, shouldn't it also be news when Kerry falls off his bike?
|
Just to be fair, I personally never heard any of this on the mainstream media. Also, Matt Drudge is pretty much on the payroll of the Republican Party now. He also was always a rumor magazine, anyways. If Drudge prints something that no one else does, that doesn't mean that everyone else is biased.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108292] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 09:09 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I never said Drudge wasn't biased. The point is, none of this should make it into the mainstream media.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #108305] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 10:48 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, I didn't hear anything about it on my on-and-off viewing of the networks, so I'm betting it's a little story that they just put up to fill airtime because they had nothing else to run.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
