Pres Bush speech mistake?

[adrian]

In today's 5:00pm news on News 8, they pointed out that Pres. Bush "misread" or said the wrong thing during the signing of a bill.

If I remembered correctly, he said

"the terrorists will always keep on thinking of new ways of hurting the country, and so do we"

or something like that (if someone knows the correct version, then please correct me).

[YoungNeil]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/index.html

[pzarquon]

[Our enemies] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
Ah, another entry to add to the growing collection (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm). To think there's already been enough material for a couple (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743222229/) of books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743251008/)...

That said, it's easier for me to figure out what he meant to say today than some of the other odd things that have come out of his mouth.

[pzarquon]

Another day, another notable quote. With deep thinking like this, the passage of the Akaka Bill (http://www.nativehawaiians.com/) is the least of the Native Hawaiians' worries.

Question: "What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?"

President George W. Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that: sovereign. You're a... you're a... you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. [Laughter.] And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the tribes is one between sovereign entities."

Hear it yourself here (http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3) (MP3).

[Karen]

Yep, Bush is one of us Texans, about as South a Southerner as one can be, and he talks like one. So what? Oh, I guess he may embarass some Americans that are more influenced by outward appearances, ya know, egotistically wanting to impress and all, but I'll tell ya my bottom line, no matter how many goofs of the language he may make.

I would vote for a deaf-mute man for president if his principles were honorable! What makes the man is what he stands for and attempts to live by. (I say attempts cuz I haven't yet met a perfect person, nor candidate.) If Kerry speaks better, is a wine snob and makes a better impression in ways, he doesn't deserve my vote. The more honorable of the two, with moral and respectable beliefs should get my vote, and that...is one of the main reasons I will never vote for Kerry, nor anyone that I've ever seen on a democrat's ticket. The platform the Dems. stand on is on sandy soil, and when tested in rough times, it will fall just like a house built on the sand in a major earthquake.

[Kilinahe]

Bush was born in Maine. He's about as Texan as me.

[Karen]

Although I am a native Texan, anyone that lives many years there, talks and walks like a Texan, IS a Texan.

Secondly, doesn't matter where he was born, the message I convey is that it is absurd to vote for the better speaker, than voting for what a candidate STANDS FOR. We are electing someone to run this country based upon what they believe in, not for someone to win the class debate.

[Karen]

"President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business." source, www.whitehouse.gov~

Well, see there! Where he grew up matters a lot more than where he exited the birth canal, common sense.

Bush IS about as Southern as one can get, without being a redneck.

[pzarquon]

I agree, owning a yacht or appreciating wine or being a snob is hardly a qualifier for the position of POTUS. On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous to discount whether someone is articulate, a good speaker, a persuasive orator, when judging their qualities as a leader, or politician. This is a person who needs to inspire, to enlighten, to inform.

There's a difference between being "plain spoken" (which I can appreciate, and know Kerry certainly isn't) and being inarticulate, often to the point of being incoherent. Even if you concede, as some might, that the inability to pronounce "nuclear" isn't a deal breaker -- yes, in some regions/accents, that's just the way it goes -- I find it incredible that most people don't sometimes cringe in pain when he hits a rough patch during an interview or speech.

And while most of the time he struggles to find words (or to follow the script), when he does get a flash of inspiration, he'll say something like, "Bring 'em on!"

On its own - being mushmouthed, being faltering, stammering, but occasionally shooting off and still finding his foot in his mouth - shouldn't be the biggestreason to vote for or against someone. But it's not irrelevant.

As for being firm in his convictions? That's all well and good, and to be sure, flip-flopping is no winning strategy. But believing something and wanting something to the point of ignoring or avoiding any contrary evidence or thinking to the contrary is also a failing. Sticking to your guns is a virtue, perhaps, but so is having an open mind.

As for his Texas ties, whatever. He identifies as Texan, he loves the hat, he lived and worked there, fine. But try as he might, he deserves no points for the "regular Joe Farmhand" act. He - and his opponent - are swimming in too much money to play that game.

[Kilinahe]

Bush IS about as Southern as one can get, without being a redneck.

I'm southern and I beg to differ that he's not a redneck.

See there!

And you really don't want to argue common sense, do you? Common sense says that if someone kills 3,000 of your citizens, you go after him til you have his head on a platter; not turn around and start a war somewhere else where you have no business being.

Shall I continue?

[scrivener]

I will never vote for Kerry, nor anyone that I've ever seen on a democrat's ticket. The platform the Dems. stand on is on sandy soil, and when tested in rough times, it will fall just like a house built on the sand in a major earthquake.

Karen:

While I can respect this position, I wonder if you feel the same about President James Earl Carter, a Democrat? Now, there's no question that his Presidency was a failure, but based on ethics and morals, I'd say that the best Presidential candidate by your standard was Jimmy Carter.

I'm not saying this for the sake of arguing--I'm merely asking for an opinion on the man who, in my opinion, has stood taller than any former holder of the office.

[Karen]

On its own - being mushmouthed, being faltering, stammering, but occasionally shooting off and still finding his foot in his mouth - shouldn't be the biggestreason to vote for or against someone. But it's not irrelevant.
You made some good points, so let's find a bottom line with this. We only have two choices, Bush or Kerry. One is more articulate than the other, but he stands on a more immoral platform, one that supports the wrongs in everyone, ie: abortion, gay rights, handouts to the point of weakening people, and is the party litigation lawyers support more. The one that is less articulate stands on the platform that is more honorable and conservative.

As I said, I would vote for a deaf/mute if that person was respectable and appreciated the same principles I do, so with only these two choices, I must choose the one that is less articulate, but believes in what I do. For me, it's a no-brainer, give me the honorable above the articulate.

[Karen]

While I can respect this position, I wonder if you feel the same about President James Earl Carter, a Democrat? Now, there's no question that his Presidency was a failure, but based on ethics and morals, I'd say that the best Presidential candidate by your standard was Jimmy Carter. I'm not saying this for the sake of arguing--I'm merely asking for an opinion on the man who, in my opinion, has stood taller than any former holder of the office.
I am glad you asked. Yes, I feel the same about Carter, as I said, it is the PARTY PLATFORM that is not built on firm soil. This party supports so many immoral things, it's the party of supporing the wrong in others, so they won't complain about your own, type of thing.

If Carter was secretly, in his heart of hearts, as honorable as you believe, WHY does he identify with the party that is not as honorable, per official policy? Doesn't compute.

[Karen]

not turn around and start a war somewhere else where you have no business being. Shall I continue? Yes, you should continue, please do! We can debate whether we should be in Iraq. We can debate just how insane a madman Saddam is, and just how many of his own people he had put in mass graves, then we can debate reliable rumors that WMDs and components intended to use to manufacture same were moved into a neighboring country inbetween visits by inspectors, etc.

I am damn glad we went into Iraq, as are the majority of their people. The insurgents there are again, people that look like Iraqi's when they dress like them, but they are not, they crossed into that country to try to drive the US out. Saddam's two looney, EVIL whacked out sons are dead, and hopefully he will get the death sentence, too.

Remember the prize fighter that is a native Iraqi, that is here on Oahu, and was on KGMB more than once? He has many relatives in Iraq, went to school with saddam, and says he is VERY glad and thankful we did what we did, that so are most of his people, and that when it stabilizes over there, he looks forward to leaving Hawaii and returning home.

You say we had no business being there, I and many believe we had a lot of business being there, and GOOD, much good has been done, by our efforts. I know troops there now that are invited into Iraqi homes, fed Pita bread meals, and given watches, movies and other gifts, and hugs, as thanks for BEING there.

Bush did a good thing, and we are safer having Bush as prez, not Kerry.

I'm southern and I beg to differ that he's not a redneck.
Make your case, then, and we can debate this, Southerner to Southerner. Why is Bush a redneck, in your opinion?

[pzarquon]

We only have two choices, Bush or Kerry. One is more articulate than the other, but he stands on a more immoral platform, one that supports the wrongs in everyone, ie: abortion, gay rights, handouts to the point of weakening people, and is the party litigation lawyers support more.While I'm glad there's no debate on the fact that "one is more articulate than the other" (which, really, was what this thread initially focused on), you can see that there's lots of room for disagreement on whether one "stands on a more immoral platform" or "supports the wrongs in everyone." Your candidate may support your moral views, but those views are not absolute. Your candidate's party may best fit your definition of "honorable," but again, the definition (or rather the interpretation) is pretty subjective.

Taking your points specifically... because I believe in and support a woman's right to choose (and yes, that includes the right to choose to not believe in abortion), gay rights (though ideally I'd like the government out of the marriage business altogether), social services (given abuse or corruption on both sides, I'd rather "giveaways" go to help a brother/sister in need than to a corporate behemoth), and do not support the party favored by big business and evangelical religious groups, it is Bush's opponent who I find a more compelling moral choice and a more honorable person.

Yes, let's both vote our conscience for what we believe is right. But be careful in asserting what defines "right."

I do find it interesting that you're stressing Bush's party ties as much as his qualities as a person. It makes me realize again that I'm just as bothered by what he (and his party) stand for as I am by who he is as a person. In fact, I'm not particularly impressed with who John Kerry is as a person, either. But it's what he represents, and because of the more commonalities than differences I find with the people and groups who support him, that earns him my vote.

[pzarquon]

While the "articulate versus honorable" and "what makes a southerner" debates continue here, I think the introduction of the Iraq War merits its own conversation. So I've gone and started a separate thread (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=1999) where we can debate the wisdom of invading Iraq, how the occupation has gone so far, and where we should go from here.

[Kilinahe]

Make your case, then, and we can debate this, Southerner to Southerner. Why is Bush a redneck, in your opinion?

He's a hateful bigot. This is what gets me about him--there's nothing Christian about hate, and I think that's what he stands for.

But, I am way off topic. I apologize. I sincerely think brains are important in a president, and Bush's keen lack of speech skills bugs me because to me, it signifies a lack of intelligence.

And I don't like Kerry either. But I really don't see things going particularly well under Bush, and I think we need to give Kerry a try, questionable combat record not withstanding.

[pzarquon]

And I don't like Kerry either. But I really don't see things going particularly well under Bush, and I think we need to give Kerry a try, questionable combat record not withstanding.Um... I'll take "where was he and when during the war and just how hard did he work to earn those medals" debates over "did he even show up for domestic duty" any day.

[Karen]

While I'm glad there's no debate on the fact that "one is more articulate than the other" (which, really, was what this thread initially focused on), you can see that there's lots of room for disagreement on whether one "stands on a more immoral platform" or "supports the wrongs in everyone." Your candidate may support your moral views, but those views are not absolute. Your candidate's party may best fit your definition of "honorable," but again, the definition (or rather the interpretation) is pretty subjective.
One being more articulate than another remains no big deal. Study any forum like this one, and you will find the more and less articulate posters on either side of any issue, just no big deal, while you may wish it to be.

Hitler was ARTICULATE. Hope you aren't choosing the president of the most powerful nation in the world, on "articulate!"

You can gray any area of immorality you wish to, it doesn't make reality. The platforms of the two parties are like black & white in comparison. The Dem. party will never get a dime of respect from me because it embraces every wrong, and wishes to not only give people rights, but their sicknesses.

I will not play Clinton's game of redefining words, they say what they mean and mean, or should mean what they have since Webster first wrote them down, and honorable men and women of that age were using them.

[Karen]

Taking your points specifically... because I believe in and support a woman's right to choose (and yes, that includes the right to choose to not believe in abortion), gay rights (though ideally I'd like the government out of the marriage business altogether), social services (given abuse or corruption on both sides, I'd rather "giveaways" go to help a brother/sister in need than to a corporate behemoth), and do not support the party favored by big business and evangelical religious groups, it is Bush's opponent who I find a more compelling moral choice and a more honorable person.
You & I are the antithesis of each other, that is what you are describing here. I believe in the baby's right above the woman's right to kill it, torturously, quite often, no pain killer given to this baby.

I do not believe in welfare for anyone but the proven ill, a leg missing, etc. Since welfare began, the welfare rolls grew faster than the population. My common sense sees that this is because if you support someone for years, you weaken them. (again, keeping in mind I mean everyone but the obviously, honestly disabled) You make people dependent upon you giving them the fish for many years, and not the fishing pole. It still exists that women have multiple births by multiple fathers every few years, to still be able to get welfare. I know of one that isn't 30 yet.

Oh there it is, the class warfare the Dems incite! Yep, don't give to big business, but penalize them for making a buck just like Hawaii does, discouraging businesses from coming to this state, such stupid policy. Make people without money jealous of those with it, and put as many of them on welfare as you can, instead of giving big business incentives to HIRE more of them! Oh yes, I've seen the truth behind the Dem. party on this one since I was barely 18.

You see, business, doesn't have to be BIG business, pays the paychecks of the worker, yet the Dems. keep the worker jealous of business owners, instead of encouraging harmony between them. Sure, there's good and bad in everything in the world, so there's good and bad business owners. Cap gains tax...was always a theft in action! many good business owners, some I know, when having lower cap gains tax, they reinvest IN their business, hiring more people, giving their employees BONUSES, etc. Voters that vote Dem, salivate with hate and resentment for business owners are actually shooting themselves in the foot. Leaders of the Dem. party sit back, like Jesse Jackson keeping hate alive, and feed off of this hate they create, getting more votes, while buying votes with welfare.

Gay rights....Dems again. Gays already have EVERY right every other citizen has. It is their Illness that does not have rights. Yes, homosexuality was written in medical books as the mental/emotional illness that is *IS* until the early seventies, then it was political pressure that changed that, not reality.

Even here in Hawaii, a majority Democrat state, we have voted NO to gay marriage! amazing that common sense prevailed on this one when the Dems. platform is to support the wrongs in everyone. Misery loves company, and so does immorality. It's the old I scratch your back and you scratch mine, I look the other way, no matter what wrong things you indulge in, and you look the other way when I indulge in wrong things, THAT....is a pretty accurate way to sum up the Dem. platform.

[pzarquon]

Hitler was ARTICULATE. Hope you aren't choosing the president of the most powerful nation in the world, on "articulate!"Ah, Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html). That was quick. I think I'm done here.

[Karen]

Bush is hateful? how do you know this? can you see inside his heart or mind? No? of course not. Well then, can you tell me where to find video, or even just tell me when he exemplified HATE, while speaking, so I can go back and try to see what you see? Jesse Jackson has sounded hateful. Some on Olelo tv, when speaking for sovereignty have honestly exemplified HATE/resentment to the max, but bush? I can only suspect that at this time, I sound hateful and a lot of people sound hateful to you, when they oppose your views.

Just for point of reference, I have a lot of faults, am totally unworthy of heaven, and I am as of this day, still NOT saved, per my own beliefs, but hate? You can't truly hang that one on me with all of the duct tape in the world, because it doesn't exist in me. I don't see it in Bush, either. I haven't yet seen it in Kerry, either, just phoniness that wreaks. Bush seems real, not phoney, he seems to me like he doesn't care if he seems like a hick, or what, but what I like about Bush's presence is that he is NOT phoney, what you see is what you get, and he is nonchelant and down-to-earth. Clinton, as dishonorable as he was, was not phoney at times, either, while Hillary is an actress at phoney, at least bubba was just being himself, as I discerned, quite often.

Give Kerry a try? people gave hitler a try, too. It is very dangerous when you are so tired of one leader that you are willing to "let something questionable in" just cuz you tire of the other. I know what to expect from Bush, while not appreciating some of his spending, and his lack border control. Kerry not only stands for much of what I find he should be embarassed for, instead, but I don't know what to expect from his phoney act, so I sincerely fear for this nation if he wins election, and win, he may, for just as my bible claimed, it is so, that as we surely get nearer the end of the age, good is called evil, and evil good, and the populace is being lulled to sleep by too many comforts, flavors, and legal rights to wallow in pleasures, no matter how gross they actually are, or not. The Dem. platform supports the right to be as wrong as we wish, so as society degenerates, I expect the Dem. party will become a majority, of course to the demise of this nation, and each person's own well-being, but you can't show someone they are headed for harm, quite often, until they are deeply harmed, if not dieing from some disease, etc.

[Karen]

Ah, Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html). That was quick. I think I'm done here."

Yes, it is quick to state truth, succintly, when it is something so obviously true.

[Karen]

Um... I'll take "where was he and when during the war and just how hard did he work to earn those medals" debates over "did he even show up for domestic duty" any day."
LOL Kerry's war experience, oh boy, is this one biting him in the butt! He took movie cameras and used them a lot, but not to film the atrocities, and his friends, etc. Oh no, he was filming his run for high office that many years ago. Thank the Lord so many were there, alive today, and willing to speak out. He is described as a loose cannon, having an actual bandaid injury for one medal, and being ASKED to LEAVE the war by officers in his command. Oh yeah, we want a loose cannon with his finger on "the" button.