Bush uses "the Google"

Parent Cafe
101

<p>LDmom: Actually, I was in Europe during the Lewinsky debacle. The rest of the world was laughing at Americans, not Clinton. They felt that Americans were pretty hypocritical, since sexual infidelity is an unfortunately common occurrence in many corners of the globe, in and out of government. (I am not saying I approve…it’s just non of my business) And, given the hypocritical “high moral standards” of the Senators and Representatives who were calling for Clinton to be tarred and feathered, our government looked pretty foolish in the eyes of the world. Sadly, there were many more problems that Clinton and the rest of our elected officials were ignoring, while they were discussing spots on Monica’s dress and Clinton was forced to defend himself instead of doing his job. Maybe someone might have been more aware of terroritst threats to our country if they had been less preoccupied with sex scandals. </p>

<p>I certainly wish our current government would worry less about trying to legislate social/moral behavior (something they will NEVER be able to successfully do) and deal with issues that matter, such as our dependence on oil, the staggering number of soldiers and innocents being killed in Iraq, the growing vitriol aimed at the US since GWB became president, obesity, diabetes and cancer on the rise, people in New Orleans still living in temporary housing…I could go on and on.</p>

102

<p>…and to all those who ask what Bush should have done…
Politely excuse himself (no one suggested he go running screaming from the room) and go where he could get first hand information so that he could be informed. Then, when he had to actually make some decisions he would have had time to think, consult, plan. If he had even turned on a tv somewhere, he would have seen what we all saw… He did not sit there reading for 20 minutes because he thought that was in the best interest of the children or the country. He sat there because no one told him what else to do.</p>

103

<p>LTS:
Yes, Cheney has the authority, in the absence of the President. I would like to think that in something this serious the decisions would be made by the highest authority not his subordinate. If he lets Cheney do all the work, why do we even need Bush?</p>

104

<p>Good grief, blucroo, you expect GWB to cure obesity, cancer and take over the local government of New Orleans? </p>

<p>The problem with Clinton and Lewinsky is that he lied under oath, thus committing perjury. I have a problem with a President who breaks the law.</p>

<p>As far as Bush’s behavior on the morning of 9/11, I don’t have any problem with it – his job is not to micromanage the military or local first responders. His job IS to maintain the confidence of the people and to minimize the terror the terrorists tried to inflict.</p>

105

<p>No SJmom, I expect our government (that would be Congress) to focus on important issues and not legislate morality and worry about who is sleeping with whom…</p>

<p>Unless it is the head of a committee on child abuse, who is coming on to underage pages…</p>

<p>Clinton lied under oath. My point is that it was upsurd that the questions were even being asked at all. Wasn’t there anything else of importance for our elected officials to worry about than what Clinton was doing with Monica? The entire hearing was political foder and of no importance to the well being of this country. </p>

<p>Some lies have more long lasting consequences…WMD’s…Oh, let’s not go there!</p>

106

<p>Ordering the military to shoot down civilian aircraft is not micromanaging.</p>

107

<h2>“Clinton lied under oath. My point is that it was upsurd that the questions were even being asked at all.”</h2>

<p>I might agree asking the questions may have been ABsurd, but once they were asked, Clinton’s responsibility was to answer truthfully. I am required by law to do many things I consider ABsurd, but I don’t consider myself above the law and therefore I do them. </p>

<p>(I really think by now we can all agree syntax, pronunciation, and spelling errors plague us all and we can certainly let that particular Bush criticism go…lol!)</p>

108

<p>Again, who is saying that Bush should have gone running and screaming from the room? Not I. I am saying he shouldn’t have sat there for twenty minutes doing absolutely nothing. </p>

<p>Children are used to adults excusing themselves all the time. It is no big deal. They would have thought absolutely NOTHING of it, had Bush, upon word of the attack, excused himself calmly, to leave; if nothing else, it was important to protect himself, as the president and all. Perhaps one of the other planes was headed towards FL, where he was, to take him out…he should have gone to a protected spot, and immediately figured out what to do to stop the planes already in the air.</p>

109

<p>Well, since we are now criticizing my spelling, and it’s Friday happy hour, I think I slink off to Sinner’s Alley where the people are more friendly and don’t take themselves so seriously. I am outa here (oops that is out of here).</p>

<p>Have a nice weekend all. Maybe next week instead of our elected officials debating gay marriage, they will work on making this country a better place for everyone (even if they aren’t straight, Christian, well-off, healthy, white and male). TTFN</p>

110

<p>awww blucroo don’t run off my account. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see you were quite serious and somewhat stern when you lectured us all the pathology of speech and language, especially that of Mr. Bush.</p>

111

<p>“…Do you recall what Bush did when he heard about the first plane hitting the World Trade Center…He looked like a deer in the headlights and went back to reading to the kids in Florida. Cheney and Rove weren’t with him to tell him to respond…”</p>

<p>Exactly. I don’t think he ever makes any decisions on his own. He couldn’t even testify on 911 without Cheney there to make sure he didn’t screw up.</p>

<p>Respectfully, though, it was the SECOND plane that had already hit when he kept reading to the kids. He admitted in an interview that he’d seen the first one hit on tv in the car on the way to the school. This is documented. The fact that it was the SECOND plane proves he knew by then that it was NOT an accident. He knew we were being attacked, and yet he didn’t even bother finding out what was going on.</p>

<p>“…Please tell us what you think Bush should have done in those first few minutes…”</p>

<p>That’s easy. Lead. Take charge. Gather his advisors and get an immediate briefing on the situation. </p>

<p>Again, keep in mind: this was the SECOND plane!</p>

<p>“…I am always amazed by justifications made for GWB’s behavior …”</p>

<p>Yeah me too. I’ve been trying to figure that out for awhile now and I’ve concluded that the people who voted for him know deep down they made a mistake but are in denial big time.</p>

<p>“…Do you think it’s amusing to make fun of the speech patterns of people from a different region of the country than you?.. I’m close to people from Texas, and they DO use idioms that are different to mine…”</p>

<p>This has NOTHING to do with being a Texan. I am a Texan. Lots of Texans are articulate and have an excellent vocabulary, just with an accent. Bush’s speech problems are much deeper than that. It’s not the speech – it’s the fact that he cannot think for himself. Haven’t you ever notice how he just repeats the same phrases over and over? He’s been instructed to repeat the same sound bites for effect. He stumbles whenever he’s asked to think on his own and isn’t prepared. It’s a sign of nervousness.</p>

<p>“…For those first minutes right before the second plane hit, the news was still reporting that it was a smaller general aircraft and that it was an accident…”</p>

<p>There are many inaccuracies here. I would like to recommend to everyone that they watch ‘911 Mysteries’ – NOT political at all, I promise! But you will be amazed at how many things you thought were ‘facts’ just weren’t.</p>

<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“…I have a problem with a President who breaks the law…”</p>

<p>Well then, you should have more of a problem with bush, since he has many times more grounds for impeachment than Clinton. (the only reason it hasn’t happened 20 times over is the Republican House & Senate.) </p>

<p>Do you have a problem with a president who destroys the Constitution?</p>

<p>“…there were many more problems that Clinton and the rest of our elected officials were ignoring, while they were discussing spots on Monica’s dress and Clinton was forced to defend himself instead of doing his job. Maybe someone might have been more aware of terroritst threats to our country if they had been less preoccupied with sex scandals…”</p>

<p>AMEN!</p>

<p>duh, it’s so obvious that was the plan all along. To distract him and us. How despicable.</p>

<p>Have any of you noticed that people just keep bringing up the same old thing about Clinton, the affair, again and again, while ignoring all the things bush has been doing? They can’t come up with anything else on Clinton, while they ignore all the things on bush. I think the churches have been brainwashing them.</p>

<p>“…Clinton’s responsibility was to answer truthfully…”</p>

<p>That is B.S.! Look at it this way: Say you have a great job and your boss really likes your work. Somehow he heard some gossip about your marriage and called you in his office and asked you if it was true that your husband/wife cheated on you (or some other personal detail). What would you do? Would you feel obligated to tell your boss ‘the truth’ about personal details about your marriage?</p>

<p>Hell no you wouldn’t! You would tell him that it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS. Would you risk your marriage over it, when it’s NONE OF HIS BUSINESS? Would you even possibly lie (or at least stretch the truth) in order to save your husband/wife the trauma of the gossip getting out? Most people would have to admit that yes, or at least maybe, they would stretch ‘the truth’ a bit to save their marriage, especially when the person asking has NO BUSINESS ASKING IN THE FIRST PLACE. </p>

<p>After all, it has nothing to do with your job.</p>

<p>All this stuff about Clinton being ‘immoral’ and lying is just a lot of self-righteous hypocritical B.S. being fed to people by the churches, for political reasons. </p>

<p>It’s much more ‘immoral’ to start wars which kill 1000’s of people, under false pretenses!</p>

<p>Immoral does not only pertain to s*x, ya know. Killing is rather immoral too, imo. They call it ‘depraved indifference’ and it is AGAINST THE LAW in this country, btw. People get thrown into jail for depraved indifference. It means making decisions with little or no regard that people might be hurt or die from it. By this definition, bush has indeed broken the law!!!</p>

<p>Blucroo: Right on!</p>

112

<p>wasnt lecturing…just clarify facts. Somehow y’all still felt it was ok to dispute fact and science. I spent 6 years studying the subject and decades in practice with patients/clients. Sometimes, ya just gotta admit when someone knows more than you do on a subject. Being accused of "disliking accents, especially those of Texans is ABsurd (see, I am capable of new learning). In fact it is more thatn absurd, because you have no idea where I am from, if I have a dialect or not. And, since I have worked with the communicatively disordered for a quarter of a century, the accusation is offensive. </p>

<p>After that, our discussion progressed to opinion. That’s different. You are entitled to yours and me to mine. But I did not attack you personally, just your statements and opinions. The thread wasn’t about who spells well. I will be the first to admit my addiction/dependence on spell check. Gotta love it. </p>

<p>Anyway, I know that when debate turns to personal attack, it’s time to bow out. So, feel free to carry on without me on this one. I prefer debating when there is chance for thoughtful discussion and willingness to listen/learn from the opposite side. Unwaivering defenders of GWB are much like him in that the will “stay the course” no matter how often they are proven wrong.</p>

<p>Lealdragon: meet me over in SA for a nightcap.</p>

113

<p>"idmom: We are NOT talking accent here. You have accent confused with a learned mispronunciation (like kids saying psghetti or my colleague saying </p>

<h2>lar-nyx) Let me explain AGAIN."</h2>

<p>Blu - This Bushbashing issue should be merely a difference of opinions, but you will have to admit to being patronizing in your previous posts (see above) … as if your training makes you the last word on the issue. It does not. And condescension is a personal attack. Given that my child has a communication disorder on the high end of the autism spectrum and has had years of language therapy (and sensory integration therapy) at the Meyer Center of Developmental Pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital, I understood your point and there was no need to reiterate to me as though I did not or could not. </p>

<p>What I was trying to say to you is this. Bush KNOWS he says the word incorrectly; he thinks it’s funny. He doesn’t care about people who make one mispronounced word an huge issue. This is much the same situation as when George HW would deliberately mispronounced Saddam for the purpose of irking Hussein. How do I know this? As I said, my uncle is retired Secret Service who served years for George HW…and had the pleasure of sitting in the man’s kitchen while he puttered around in his sweater and socks making sandwiches for himself and my uncle. My uncle knows the boys and Barbara well. The man is capable of pulling a leg or two for fun…the whole family is like that. So I got your point, you missed mine. And dare I say, you seemed quite convinced of your pov, so ‘thoughtful discussion and a willingness to listen/learn’ seems to be something you only expect from others.</p>

<p>Btw…there are no perfect spellers here…myself included. Just look at my past posts and you’ll find plenty of booboos. As I said in post 107, this is something ‘that plagues US all’. My point HERE being I won’t fault Bush for his booboos, because I make my own. Doesn’t that seem fair?</p>

114

<p>lealdragon -</p>

<p>Your whole post was so partisan and disjointed it made my head hurt. :slight_smile: You are entrenched in your pov, unwilling to discuss what is commendable along with what is not when it comes to Bush. Exaggeration of issues that are completely unimportant (like the 15 minutes following WTC and how words are pronounced) does not lend gravitas to your arguments against Bush. So I’ll let the tail chasing go on and when the conversation gets logical again (or when the dog falls over), I’ll pop back in.</p>

115

<p>Actually, contrary to what you might think, I am NOT a Democrat (though I do plan to vote straight-ticket Democrat this time, in an effort to dislodge the ironclad grip the neocons have).</p>

<p>Respectfully, you have not read very many of my posts. If you had, you would know that I am an odd mixture of mostly-liberal-but-an-odd-bit-of-conservative-on-some-things and I usually think of voting as a distasteful choosing of the ‘lesser of the 2 evils’ since MOST politicians are usually corrupt to some degree (some more than others) AND you would also know that I actually have a very high respect for Pat Buchanan - a TRUE conservative who has pointed out how the neocons have STOLEN the Republican party!</p>

<p>and, regarding your words:</p>

<p>“…won’t fault Bush for his booboos…”</p>

<p>The president of the most powerful country on earth should not make as many ‘booboos’ as he makes. This is way beyond the normal ‘booboos’ and falls in the realm of being ill-qualified for the job.</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>"but I don’t consider myself above the law and therefore I do them. "</p>

<p>ahem, a bit of self-righteousness here?</p>

<p>I guess we all could use a Tylenol! ;-)</p>

116

<p>lol leal! I go for the Rapid Release Tylenol myself! </p>

<p>Politics are pretty ridiculous actually…both sides of it. I do admit to be a stickler about lying though. (That’s what gets my kids in the BIG doghouse!) So I can’t help it. For me, Clinton is ‘so over’. And btw, just so you know, WMD lies are why Bush and Blair are ‘so over’ for me as well. I’m sick of most of our lawmakers, regardless of affiliation. And I want to know what we have to do to get sharp, intelligent, HONEST people elected to serve us all.</p>

<p>(PS…please tell me that your quote doesn’t imply you break the laws you find absurd. Do we have a fan of civil disobedience here? lol)</p>

117

<p>“His job IS to maintain the confidence of the people and to minimize the terror the terrorists tried to inflict.”</p>

<p>Then why does he keep reminding us of the terror threat at every turn, effectively ‘milking’ 911, and the Republican campaigns keep focusing on how we should be ‘Scared. Very Scared’?</p>

118

<p>No, actually I am quite a law-abiding citizen. (Except for maybe going 5 miles over the speed limit.)</p>

<p>I was merely making a point.</p>

<p>I’m glad to hear you are equally fed up with the current crop of politicians. I agree that the Clinton thing is so ‘over.’ But, if it is so ‘over’ then why do Republicans keep bringing it up? I admit that it is a pet peeve of mine, when I am more concerned about the current admin. and I get annoyed when people keep talking about Clinton instead of noticing what bush is doing, which is far, far worse imo. The thing is that even though talk about the WMD lies may be ‘over’ in your mind, they have still not been held accountable for those lies, and people are continuing to die because of those lies. So there is a HUGE difference. This issue needs to be addressed, not be ‘over’ because it is still relevant, they are still in power.</p>

119

<p>

Well, because we should be. Our country was attacked with a resultant loss of thousands of lives. Al Queda and other terrorist groups have proven themselves to have the ability and desire to carry out sophisticated and effective operations. With access to more and more technology and with the increased possibility of these groups obtaining weapons of mass destruction including biological, chemical (which Saddam used against his own citizens), and nuclear weapons, we and the rest of the world must do what we can to prevent further attacks BEFORE they occur. We really have no alternative. The point keeps getting raised by the republicans because it’s one of the most important threats to our country and way of life today. Without national security, all other national issues are trivial by comparison. What I don’t understand is why some democrats don’t give it more emphasis and haven’t offered effective alternative plans to counter this most important threat to the free world. It’s much easier to criticize than to offer concrete plans that would be more effective.</p>

120

<p>“One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps.”</p>

<p>“It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.” </p>

<p>The president of the United States should not talk like this. Why are some of you defending his incorrect grammatical usage??</p>