Bush's Last Official Act

1. 74

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   In what he hoped would be the capstone to his eight years as
   President, George W. Bush today signed an executive order repealing
   the English language.
   
   Scrawling his name on the official document, Mr. Bush said that in
   abolishing English he had vanquished his "greaterest enemy."
   
   For Mr. Bush, the executive order represents the realization of a
   longstanding dream that began in 2001 when he declared an official War
   on Grammar.
   
   The president followed up that declaration of war in 2003 when he
   signed an executive order canceling the agreement between nouns and
   verbs.
   
   Mr. Bush's decision to repeal the English language could complicate
   matters for his successor, President-elect Barack Obama, who is
   scheduled to deliver his inaugural address tomorrow, presumably in
   English.
   
   But thoughts of Mr. Obama seemed far away during today's jubilant Oval
   Office ceremony, which Mr. Bush summed up in four words: "I can has
   legacy."
   
   Mr. Bush's executive offer also drew high praise from a fellow
   Republican, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska: "Being that the English
   language can and has been used in confusing and also too in harming
   ordinary Americans, knowing that it no longer can or will be used in
   doing that is something positive that this is doing also."
   
   (Note I was torn between posting this in the Politics Forum or here:-)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      goldentoadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I am dying.

      replyreport
2. 77

   t.keeleyposted 15 years ago

   ROFL

   replyreport
3. 74

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   Wish I could take credit -- this came to me in an email. But it's so darned true. We're not gonna have W to make fun of anymore!

   replyreport
4. 66

   crashcromwellposted 15 years ago

   Oh who says? Just because he's leaving office doesn't mean we can't rag on the old Thief in Chief. Something tells me that this guy is going to find ways to get his rather unique perspectives into the media after he leaves office.
   
   Man, does it feel great to say those words....Bush...leaving office!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      lemarquis72posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Bush was never one who needed or begged for attention with media outlets.  In fact, it was the other way around, they hounded him, as happens with every president.  Mr. Bush will quietly walk away from the presidential office without stooping to dignify the shrill and petulant cries of his detractors with any answers.  Mark my words.  I ask that you, in a year's time, take note of how fully he will have disappeared from public persuasion.  I am of the opinion that the armchair quarterbacks who enjoy blaming the president for all things reveal their own dishonor rather than his. 
      
      Oh yes, Mighty Mom, great post!  I am a fellow grammar nazi and got a great laugh out of that one.

      replyreport
5. 60

   britneydavidsonposted 15 years ago

   nice hub.thanx for posting it...

   replyreport
6. 79

   SweetiePieposted 15 years ago

   Thanks for the great laugh .

   replyreport
7. 53

   rinasings2uposted 15 years ago

   good bye to him

   replyreport
8. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   I am of the opinion that Bush will walk away quietly because it is the smartest thing he can do as far as public opinion.  Arguably he was one of the poorest presidents we have had, and a 'legacy' politician, anyway.  That isn't arm chair, window shield reaction, either, but an assessment of his record.
   
   Butchering language (that bad) is just but one proof...

   replyreport
9. 66

   Nicholas Mocciaposted 15 years ago

   I am of the opinion that W will be vindicated--he is a man of principle, uninfluenced by the vagaries of public opinion..  He does what, in his view, is right, not what happens to get good PR with a biased mass media.  Arguably he was one of the most underestimated presidents we have had, and it remains to be seen what his true legacy will be after people will have had the opportunity to truly digest his record under a historical lense rather than an NY Times Op-Ed.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I should also say, subtle and funny. 

      replyreport
10. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Do you happen to know what his GPA was at Yale, Nick, out of curiosity, i.e.?
    
    And a historical lens (as we do seem to 'progress' even if it is by stops and starts), will prove the absolute opposite of what you say. "Vagaries" would be right.
    
    This 'argument' isn't even partisan particularly, you know, so you should put away your bashing of the NYtimes Op Eds. that so screams, "Neo-con."

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       There is an inside joke among law students which I think it particularly apt:  "A" students sit on the Supreme Court; "C" students run the world.  One president gets elected because he's a legacy brat...another gets elected because of affirmative action...same difference.
       
       
       
       
       
       Did you read this in the NY Times as well?
       
       
       
       The most insidiously partisan "arguments" are those that masquerade under a respectable and academic "objectivity."  Please mark the NY Times as exhibit 1, your honor; Lita Sorensen as exhibit 2.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Obama did not state his race when he went to law school; indeed he is half black, half white.  I have a strong respect for those who overcome great odds to succeed on their own in general.  Obama qualifies and then some, with 2 books written, not a unethical spot on his record (I don't want to hear any neocon crap about birth certficates, etc.--what a joke), editor of the law review--all around in every aspect of his life a success.
          
          There is a joke among A students--that the "C" student argument is only made by those who are, lol, generally C students themselves--that in any field (oh, and it further explains you).  Bush's GPA was 2.25, somewhat below a C, and that info. was not obtained in the NYTimes.  Daddy is the only reason he is there--hmm, similar to most sorority chicks.  Wonder why I don't like many of them?
          
          No--when I say I read, I mean I read.  Even the Republican crap stuff.  Good to know what the other side 'thinks' (if you call can call it that sometimes); all the better to beat them at their game.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

             It is unnecessary to state ones race to avail oneself of affirmative action.  1.  Columbia undergrad and Harvard Law School interview their applicants.  2.  Letters of recommendation likely revealed his race.  3.  The extracurricular activites and special honors he received likely revealed his race as well. 
             
             But even so, I am not narrowly refering to affirmative action with regard to his applications to school. 
             
             The bottom line is that Obama availed himself of an analogous advantage as Bush which allowed him to rise more quickly than similarly situated peers.  Being half black and half white is irrelevant.
             
             
             
             
             Obama has not overcome particularly "great odds".  He went to private school all his life and took advantage of the headwinds of political correctness at every step of his career.  If both of his parents were African American and from the inner city, then perhaps it might be appropriate to say he overcame great odds.  Even certain members of the African-American community question whether he is "authentic" enough.  Obama's presidency is a windfall and has nothing to do with any peculiar talent on his part.  Sure, he's a smart guy, but there are plenty of smart guys in the room.

             replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    Just for one the annual deficit when bush came in was near nothing. Now it is
    455 billion, and the country is in economic meltdown. But somehow lawyers love this guy. Is there any connection between law and reality?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Apparently not when you are a member of Mr. Obama's cabinet.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Please tell me why banks made loans to uncreditworthy people when this never used to be their practice and flies in the face of common sense?  Would private banks willingly make such painfully bad loans except for the fact that some 3rd party compelled them to do so?  When a private bank used to make loans back during the "bubble period", who was the ultimate assignee of many of these bad loans?  Tell me what you understand Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be?  Who created these organizations?  and who runs them?  who said everything was A-OK with these organization?  Who is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?  I'll be generous and let these be rhetorical questions for jury to consider.  I rest.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Does not understand how predatory lending works and the debt cycling and how those interests that benefitted from it NEEDED it to turn out this way.  Does not understand how the lack of regulation caused these issues, in part. Does not understand the oil interest/governance aspect.
          
          Only figured out the stuff he does know about 2-2 1/2 years ago himself, and believes that is somehow proof of his 'superiority,' lol.  Is 'rude' in talking to someone of a differing opinion.

          replyreport
       2. 55

          NewRepublicanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Also, most people seem to overlook the fact that Bush and McCain WARNED Democrats many times about both Fannie and Freddie but they were ignored and brushed aside.  I have never seen any mainstream media talk about this.  All I'm saying is that, use due diligence first before blaming Bush on the economy.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

             This is absolutely correct.

             replyreport
12. 78

    KCC Big Countryposted 15 years ago

    "in real official sounding radio voice*........ahem....I interupt this political discussion to make an observation........
    
    Nick......according to your profile, you've been here 2 months, you have posted 25 hubs and have 458 posts (and counting).........
    
    Have you considered getting a website and having your own blog?  Seriously man.
    
    
    Ok.....carry on........ :0)

    replyreport
13. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    "Can you cite your sources as well as you can them?"
    
    Um, what the heck did that say?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry, I had a Bush moment.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Well!  Whenever you mis-speak, you an always do it in Latin and obfuscate!  LondonGirl isn't around to appreciate it though, ;(
          
          
          Okay...  So NO responses, So!  I win, obviously!
          
          Time to watch some CNN...

          replyreport
14. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    OK--During the election, I read in depth:
    
    Huffington Post (very liberal leaning, makes no bones about it)
    
    New York Times (sorry, despite your opinion, still the grey lady standard, tho a little slow on the uptake these days)
    
    The Atlantic & Andrew Sullivan's Blog (as mentioned before an INTELLIGENT conservative of standards)
    
    Mudflats (Blog out of Anchorage---hmm, why would I read that?)
    
    Time (generally considered more liberal leaning)
    
    Newsweek (generally considered more 'right' leaning, tho not always the case)
    
    CNN daily
    
    The AZ Republic (to the right of Kublai Khan, even tho they are Gannett--they're all about pleasing the audience--I know as I worked for Gannett in iowa city)
    
    National Review (although they have disgraced themselves now horribly)
    
    The New Yorker (Gold standard--tho biased, especially with literature)
    
    Assorted Republican crap sheets just to get the feel for them, mainly as directed by Sullivan...
    
    AND yourself?????   Oh, that's right--one news source:  Rush Limbaugh.  Been stuck in ancient history and language for a long time, huh?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I channel my sources directly from the ether.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          No frickin' doubt, Nick...  And they are spacey as such, too.

          replyreport
15. 55

    NewRepublicanposted 15 years ago

    COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT
    
    Google it before you blame Bush for the economic mess we are in now. That's all I ask.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       WELL SAID.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_ … ry_Lending

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Extremely controversial as far as difference of opinion, and frankly, the way this has been written in Wikipedia.

          replyreport
16. 55

    NewRepublicanposted 15 years ago

    Oh, and also, I think it's absurd when people label Bush the "worst president ever" like it's some definite and absolute statement.  How can one say that when most people are only alive for less than a handful of presidents!  Trust me, I have some issues with him too, but come on, worst president ever...give me a break.  People called Jimmy Carter the worst president ever and he is still alive himself!!!

    replyreport
17. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Arguably, Obama was from the lower middle class.  Read his books or bio?  A scholarship private school student.  No father or father figure in his life for the main part.  And it takes more than affirmative action to have succeeded through everything he did in life, much more.  One would be an innate drive.
    
    And there is not a spot on his record.  I'd also state I want an intelligent president with a big "I".  Preferably one with the kind of education and record that looks like the qualifications of a President.  Not a D student, or an F student (McCain, another legacy baby) or a woman with less education and foreign policy experience than myself (5 schools, some of them community colleges and she barely graduated.)
    
    Indeed, I do see Obama won in some part (arguable how much) for the same reason OJ Simpson was acquitted.  Just the right time, the right place--that is obviously sometimes the difference in any race or 'win,' as I'm sure you know.
    
    There was NO other smart guy (or woman--besides Hillary) in that race at the end.  Period.
    
    The "authenticity" thing smacks of reverse racism, anti-elitism, and I'm sorry, from the position you are in at the moment you really don't have any grounds to argue.  Your 'position' just says I don't understand the issues of race and class at best--or I will win in any regard and use class and race--because you are white.  Which one is it I wonder?

    replyreport