Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

The men and women of our military is what is known as the "expendibles."
We've all heard that phrase, "out of sight, out of mind." It seems to be working too.

0 Replies

Rumsfeld:

Quote:

"People are fungible."

Mirriam-Webster:

Quote:

Main Entry: fun-ja-bul
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform

: being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities>

See, Rumsfeld thinks this is a game, like Risk, where he pushes pieces around and cackles.

"Look at all my little men! Heeheeheehee...." Twisted Evil

0 Replies

WARNING: I'm going to post this one on several forums that has to do with this presidency.
********************
>
> Look what happens when a President gets elected in a year with a "0" at the end. Also notice it goes in increments of 20 years.
>
> 1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
> 1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
> 1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
> 1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
> 1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
> 1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (dies in office)

> 1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
> 1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
>
>
>
> 2000: George W. Bush ?????
>
> And to think that we had two guys fighting it out in the courts to be the one elected in 2000.
>
> You might also be interested in this.
> Have a history teacher explain this ----- if they can.
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
>
> Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
> John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
>
> Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
> Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
>
> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
> Both Presidents were shot in the head.
>
> Now it gets really weird..
>
> Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
> Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
>
> Both were assassinated by Southerners.
> Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
>

> Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
> Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
>
> John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
> Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
>
> Both assassins were known by their three names..
> Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
>
> Now hang on to your seat !!!!
>
> Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.' Kennedy was shot in a
car
> called 'Lincoln' - made by 'Ford.'
>
> Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
>
> And here's the kicker ......
>
> A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.
> A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
>
> Are these all true?

0 Replies

George W. Bush and John Kerry somehow ended up at the same barbershop. As they sat there, each being worked on by a different barber, not a word was spoken. The barbers were even afraid to start a conversation for fear it would turn to politics.

As the barbers finished, the one who had Bush in his chair reached for the aftershave.

Bush was quick to stop him, saying: "No thanks, my wife will smell that and think I've been in a whorehouse."

The second barber turned to Kerry and said, How about you? Kerry replied, "Go ahead, my wife doesn't know what the inside of a whorehouse smells like."

0 Replies

0 Replies

cicerone, those coincidences have been floating around since long before there was an internet. I think I first saw them on a mimeographed page, not long after Kennedy was shot. Verbatim, if memory serves...

0 Replies

Does Bush bashing bother me? Not at all. I think it could become the new national and possibly international sport. Any ideas on how to score it?

Sam

0 Replies

D'art, Many current A2Kers are much younger than most of us old'uns, and most don't even know who John Kennedy is! LOL

0 Replies

Too true, c.i....

0 Replies

BTW, I also saw this one long before now, but who's keeping track? Wink

0 Replies

hi sam 1951

The term 'Bush bashing' bothers me more than does criticism of the fellow or his administration.

It would be lovely if someone somewhere has written software to mine the internet for terminology instances, to record them in context along with date of usage (as the OED does).

Off the top of my head, the first instances I can recall of "___bashing" was 'gay bashing'. Of course, 'Clinton bashing' was another usage a few years back.

It seems likely that if the construction had been around much earlier, it would have been used to describe the moves to deny Robert Bork a seat on the SC (like 'Bush bashing', it would have been alliterative, which headline writers cannot resist) but the term "Borking" arose from that episode (now meaning unfair criticism or opposition to a judicial nominee).

"Bashing", as we are using it here, has likewise has come to mean unfair criticism, but the implication that the unfairness is due to partisan motivation isn't far beneath the surface.

Of course, one's political leaning will likely have influence on where we perceive unfair criticism to be occuring. So the use of the term becomes effectively valueless, except as a means of establishing the speaker's (or the "basher's") political leaning.

Whether or not criticism is actually unfair seems more establishable, but only where some objective set of criteria might be used. For example, we might note instances of false statements or refusal to correct false statements, or we might try to calculate bias (percentage of statements that are derogatory) etc. In the case of Clinton bashing, we can point to organizations forming up and operating with the specific goal of discrediting the man.

0 Replies

blatham,

Oh, silly me. Here thought Bush bashing was pointing out the lies, half truths, back-pedaling, personal agendas and questionable connections etc. of G.W. and his administration. With a large helping of questioning motives. If you mean fatuous comments regarding personalities, rather than policies and actions effecting the country and world, then no I do not like that, period. I will not bash a political leader for bad taste or appearing to be foolish in public, however I may laugh at them. Bad decisions, lies, those things make want come out swinging.
Just my take on this and I could be wrong.

Sam

0 Replies

sam

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you'd said anything silly. If we look at this thread title and author, I think we see something quite typical...he asks rhetorically in the first post, "Has all of the Liberal Bush bashing begun to bother you at all?" So the use of the term is as a derogation - Liberals, being liberals, are engaged in something perhaps irrational, certainly ideological and partisan.

You speak above to the sorts of reasons you see as rational reasons to criticize Bush and his administration. As it happens, I share your criticisms, and I voice them here far more often than many would prefer. The author of this thread clearly considers me a Bush basher.

I really just wanted to point to the language and meanings sitting back of this term, Bush bashing.

0 Replies

blatham,

Don't be concerned, no offence taken. The, "silly me" was just my way of saying I can miss the point sometimes and laughing at myself. :wink:
The state of the world and the part the US government and multinational corporations have played in it scares me. There is too much going on in secret, too many hidden agendas. As I soldier I knew that I was expendable, it's part of the job. I never relished the thought of dieing for my country. Now it seams that everyone is expendable.
If several other nations formed a coalition and invaded the US in order to oust Bush and his administration, what would US citizens do? I think that we would fight with everything available to repel the invasion regardless of what happened to G. W and company.
There has to be a better way.
On a lighter note... Very Happy

I love Vancouver. Billie and I have been their twice and will be going back in September this year to help friends celebrate their tenth anniversary. Who knows we may get a chance to say Hi.

Sam

0 Replies

sam

I may be out of the city then. Not sure yet. But by all means contact me by PM here and check before you visit. If I'm here, I'll certainly be happy to get together.

0 Replies

blatham

Sam and Billie too

0 Replies

Asherman has written two fine posts. He outlines what he feels is wrong with the USA. At the end of his last post he gives his opinion on what is wrong.

I agree.

Asherman points out that people no longer feel that there is a qualitiative difference between people and/or ideas.

Asherman longs for the end of "political correctness"

Asherman would like to see people taking more responsiblity for themselves.

I think that Mr. Asherman's ideas, were they to come true, would go very far in moving us towards a much more ideal state.

It is clear to me that the drive to expunge the "differences" between people and ideas arise from the illogical modern drive towards relativism.
There is no "good" "better" or "Best", some say.

With that kind of thinking, how can we ever improve the polity

It is clear to me that the idiocy involved in "political correctness" has made the exchange of ideas concerning government and its operation a fruitless endeavor. Instead of rational discussion, one is attacked as being bigoted, mysoginistic, etc.

Political correctness does not allow for the exchange of ideas. Therefore, no progress can be made.

It is clear to me that in the last fifty years, the concept of "rights" has trumped the duty of "responsiblity". Many will not agree that in order for people to enjoy "rights" others must discharge "responsiblities.

Mr. Asherman's posts are quite good. I congratulate him on his impressive exposition.