Bushisms

dcarter
Posts: 11736
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Location: Manchester, WA

Post by dcarter »

TOM!! I care for you but God dammit, we already dealt with this. When I make a grammar gaffe, I point it out, correct it and explain to my class why it is important to speak well. I am diligent in trying to be well spoken. George W. Bush, the president of the United States of America, doesn't give a rat's ass what he sounds like. It is a big difference.
Last edited by dcarter on Fri May 09, 2008 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

farrarfan1
Posts: 5342
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Still out there,doing what I would die for

Post by farrarfan1 »

Must be nice to never make a mistake or say the wrong thing.

dcarter
Posts: 11736
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Location: Manchester, WA

Post by dcarter »

Rob73 wrote:One of my fav's:

"Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.......... because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

:lol:
That was a classic. Remember, though, that statement is not evidence of his lack of intellect! :lol:

Rob73
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:11 am
Location: St. Louis, Mo.

Post by Rob73 »

One of my fav's:

"Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.......... because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

:lol:

Hoops
Posts: 1907
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Loftus Road

Post by Hoops »

I am posting this article because I will give the President the credit he deserves when he in fact does something right. His only screw-up here is that he has not publicized this more. This issue got one sentence in his State of the Union Address...



Bush's Other War
Fighting AIDS in Africa, and winning.
by Joseph Loconte
01/30/2008 12:00:00 AM


FOR A FEW FLEETING moments Monday night--what should have been vivid and affecting moments--television coverage of President Bush's final State of the Union address fastened on the image of a mother and daughter from Moshi, Tanzania. They sat, their faces alive with hope, in the first lady's box seats. Viewers were not told, and no one seemed inclined to tell them, that Tatu Msangi and her daughter Faith quite literally owe their lives to the Bush administration.
After Msangi became pregnant, she went to a clinic at the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center and learned she was HIV-positive. Five years ago that news typically brought a death sentence in Tanzania, as it does in much of sub-Saharan Africa. But in 2003--over the carping of liberal ideologues and conservative fiscal hawks--Bush launched the most ambitious international health initiative in American history, the $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Kilimanjaro clinic receives PEPFAR money and anti-retroviral drugs, and Msangi enrolled in their program to prevent HIV transmission between mother and child. In addition to her treatment, her daughter Faith, now two years old, received nevirapine immediately after her birth. Today Faith is free of HIV.
"Protecting our nation from the dangers of a new century requires more than good intelligence and a strong military," Bush said. "It also requires changing the conditions that breed resentment and allow extremists to prey on despair. So America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world." Under PEPFAR, about 1.4 million AIDS patients in 15 nations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean have received life-saving medicines. Bush announced Monday night that he intended to add another $30 billion to the program over the next five years.
Many on the left, at home and abroad, have reproached the president for his alleged failure to use "soft power" to confront religious extremism and advance U.S. foreign policy goals. Yet here is a supremely humane initiative--inconceivable to foreign policy realists--linked to U.S. security concerns. Bush rightly calls it "a reflection of our national interest and the calling of our conscience." Just think about the number of AIDS orphans that would be scratching for survival without PEPFAR. Millions of rootless young boys cannot be a good thing for any society. Whatever the relationship between poverty and terrorism, this program is probably doing more to check the flow of terrorist recruits than all the diplomatic bloviating in Brussels, Geneva, and New York put together.
Even the president's most vitriolic critics call his HIV/AIDS policy a remarkable achievement. After Bush signed PEPFAR into law, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof ripped it as "a war on condoms." But Kristof has since praised the initiative, and a recent Times story called it "the most lasting bi-partisan accomplishment of the Bush presidency." Democratic Senator John Kerry labels the program "a tremendous accomplishment for the country." And Paul Zeitz, executive director of the liberal Global AIDS Alliance, believes Bush has ignited a "philosophical revolution" in America's commitment to combating global AIDS and poverty.
That's no embellishment. The Times article noted, with obvious embarrassment, that before the Bush initiative hardly 50,000 AIDS patients overseas were getting U.S. assistance. The unmentionable fact is that Bill Clinton--despite a robust economy, budget surpluses, few international crises, and eight interminable years in the White House--never seriously contemplated how America might help the developing world tackle the AIDS pandemic. The plight of AIDS orphans barely appeared on the Clinton radar screen. But if Congress approves the next round of funding, HIV/AIDS treatment will reach 2.5 million people, probably prevent 12 million new infections, and help care for about 5 million orphans and at-risk children. So much for the liberal record on social justice.
PEPFAR's success is partly a result of Bush's decision to mostly bypass bloated and corrupt U.N. bureaucracies and deliver assistance directly to community and faith-based organizations (a concept still resisted by many in the U.S. Agency for International Development). About 80 percent of PEPFAR recipients are indigenous, grass-roots groups: the "armies of compassion" that Bush has extolled since the first days of his administration. In countries such as Uganda, faith-based clinics, supported by local ministers and imams, are crucial in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Unlike many AIDS activist groups or U.N.-sponsored programs, they can effectively challenge risky behaviors that help spread the disease-from prostitution to illicit drug use.
By sheer force of will, Bush has orchestrated the most successful partnership of government and international civil society in memory--what is emerging as a medical Marshall Plan for Africa. Presidential hopefuls such as Barack Obama might never admit it, but PEPFAR sure looks like "change we can believe in." Yet, thanks to media indifference and political cynicism, most Americans will never hear the redemptive story of Tatu Msangi, her daughter, or anyone like them, despite their legions. Why disturb the deranged caricature of Bush that shapes the narrative of the liberal establishment?
After all, America's standing in the world, we are told, has sunk to Olympian depths--and it's mostly Bush's fault. Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center seems to revel in his predictable findings of the Bush administration's unpopularity in the world, what he calls a "global backlash against the spread of American ideas and customs." Yet Kohut mostly ignores the fact that in nine of the ten African nations surveyed in 2007--countries such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda--strongly favorable views of the United States are the rule.
Dr. Alex Coutinho, a Ugandan AIDS expert, could probably explain why. He told the Times that Ugandans are "terrified" that when President Bush leaves office, "the Bush fund" for HIV/AIDS will go with him. And he marvels at how little Americans seem to know about the program their government has championed. "Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of."
That might not qualify as an African proverb, but it's an expression of moral clarity that bears repeating during this election season.
Joe Loconte is a senior fellow at Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy, a commentator for National Public Radio, and a frequent contributor to THE DAILY STANDARD.

farrarfan1
Posts: 5342
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Still out there,doing what I would die for

Post by farrarfan1 »

Lakefork wrote:"In the world of politics there is nothing new."

A black dude named Barak Obama is pretty new
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said before. He's just saying it with one of the most eloquent speaking voices ever, which is apparently more important than substance.

Lakefork
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:31 pm

Post by Lakefork »

"In the world of politics there is nothing new."

A black dude named Barak Obama is pretty new

The Dude

Post by The Dude »

Hmm, I don't know about the grammar and all.

But that French president with the hot wife and hotter mistress, well, durnit, whenever he speaks, I can't understand a dadgum thing.

anadyne2112
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Paducah, KY

Post by anadyne2112 »

(insert W voice here) "How dare you insult my intellification."
:?

dcarter
Posts: 11736
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Location: Manchester, WA

Post by dcarter »

"Do you think he says some of the things he does to appear more like the "Average Joe"? I don't think anyone can honestly say he's not intelligent."
That is what I was getting at here: "He may actually be intelligent. But if he is, it is wrong for anyone in a position of influence to dumb themselves down, but for the president, especially the education president, it is shameful to do so. He has a responsibility to the nation."

If he actually wants to sound dumb, that is shameful. I care very much about his 'miscues'. He is my representative and it does our country no good when children and young people hear or hear about the president speaking in an incorrect manner.

Personally, I doubt that he is highly intelligent. When he has to speak off the cuff and is given unscripted questions, he is like a deer in the headlights and that is when he makes most of his gaffes. That this isn't a major issue with most people saddens me and makes me worry about my nation's future. Name one other leader of a leading nation that sounds like a "C student" and/or revels in sounding like one. :cry:
Last edited by dcarter on Thu May 08, 2008 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

half-n-half
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 2:31 am

Post by half-n-half »

ach, nevermind.

i just hate when people says he is from Texas. he's a freakin' east coaster and no amount of dumb talk and brush clearing can change that.

farrarfan1
Posts: 5342
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Still out there,doing what I would die for

Post by farrarfan1 »

dcarter wrote:Tom, by 'dream president', I simply meant the idealistic vision of a president that I agreed with 100%. It is theoretical only. Of course I have said things that were grammatically incorrect in class, were wrong or just plain cumbersome. The difference is, I immediately catch it and correct myself, explaining the mistake and why it is important to strive to speak properly. Bush couldn't give 2 hoots in hell. Another difference is that it is even more important for a world leader to be diligent in how he presents himself. All Americans, rightly or wrongly, are judged by their representatives throughout the world. It is a major issue. It shoulkd be treated as such by all Americans.
He may actually be intelligent. But if he is, it is wrong for anyone in a position of influence to dumb themselves down, but for the president, especially the education president, it is shameful to do so. He has a responsibility to the nation.
Do you think he says some of the things he does to appear more like the "Average Joe"? I don't think anyone can honestly say he's not intelligent. I know some/a lot of people disagree with his policies to the point of actually hating him and maybe that influences their tolerance of his verbal "miscues". I don't know and quite honestly I really don't care about his verbal skills.

He's been a disapointment to me because of his liberal like expansion of the government and handling of the Iraq war, not because he isn't an eloquent speaker.

Aw damnit I got sucked in didn't I? :wink:

dcarter
Posts: 11736
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Location: Manchester, WA

Post by dcarter »

Tom, please see the end of page 1.

Trellis
Posts: 981
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Peterborough, ON

Post by Trellis »

Mission accomplished

dcarter
Posts: 11736
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Location: Manchester, WA

Post by dcarter »

Tom, by 'dream president', I simply meant the idealistic vision of a president that I agreed with 100%. It is theoretical only. Of course I have said things that were grammatically incorrect in class, were wrong or just plain cumbersome. The difference is, I immediately catch it and correct myself, explaining the mistake and why it is important to strive to speak properly. Bush couldn't give 2 hoots in hell. Another difference is that it is even more important for a world leader to be diligent in how he presents himself. All Americans, rightly or wrongly, are judged by their representatives throughout the world. It is a major issue. It shoulkd be treated as such by all Americans.
He may actually be intelligent. But if he is, it is wrong for anyone in a position of influence to dumb themselves down, but for the president, especially the education president, it is shameful to do so. He has a responsibility to the nation.

Post Reply