|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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
The president followed up that declaration of war in 2003 when he
signed an executive order canceling the agreement between nouns and
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
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
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:-)
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!
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!
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Apparently not when you are a member of Mr. Obama's cabinet.
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.
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.
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.
"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)
"Can you cite your sources as well as you can them?"
Um, what the heck did that say?
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)
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?
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT
Google it before you blame Bush for the economic mess we are in now. That's all I ask.
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!!!
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?
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-rep … 62554.htmlForeclosures topped 1 million in 2010 and the pace is expected to pick up in this quarter pushing home prices down an additional 5% and putting more borrowers...
by Stacie L7 years ago
US President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder in the Berlin Chancellery in May 2002.Already having been branded a liar by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, ex-US President George W. Bush's...
by ptosis6 years ago
"illegal immigrants under 30 who entered the U.S. as children and meet certain other residency and education requirements for the next two years. They also would be eligible to apply for work permits," -...
by fishskinfreak20089 years ago
An overwhelming majority of people surveyed in a CBS poll believe that Bush has failed...miserably
by ptosis16 months ago
The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted."Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general...
by leeberttea8 years ago
Executive order 12425 was signed by Obama back in December. It essentially gives Interpol freedom to act as they deem necessary in the USA without regard to restraints of the constitution or US law. Unfortunately this...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.