It seems to me that people are telling you the same thing, just in different words. I guess you really believe that this subject could have been debated honestly, but given the way you posed it, I think that was impossible.
The problem is that it’s almost impossible to intelligently debate the offensive connotations of the word “neighbors.”
Yeah. It was going to happen, now it never will.
I agree, and I’m comfortable with it in that context. Things reside in a completely different perspective when uttered by federally elected officials. I took it the way I explained, not expecting others to wholeheartedly agree. Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t share my reaction to it, even if I’m the only one who had it.
I didn’t realize my power. I’m humbled. One step closer to world domination. You’re all in trouble now!
In case it’s escaped your notice, the man’s not an official at the moment.
I’ll just point out that when I read Bush’s quote, before making it far enough into the OP to see what the beef with it was, the only thing I could come up with to find offense with was that those of us up here where I live really can’t be considered neighbors of the Gulf Coast, geographically speaking. So, my first reaction (when trying to find something in the quote that had offended anyone), was that the term neighbor might be too inclusive, rather than divisive. As far as I’m concerned, if you aren’t a victim of the hurricane, the victims can legitimately be referred to as your neighbors. And, since Bush isn’t a victim, including himself and using the pronoun “our” makes perfect sense, aside from Kennebunkport and Biloxi being in anything resembling the same neighborhood.
Your OP is nothing but a personal pot-shot, except that the target doesn’t post to the SDMB. “Is George Bush an elitist?” may be a valid topic of debate, but you’ve offered precisely of datum in support of it, and that rests on having an absolute tin-ear for the connotations of common English words.* You don’t have a debate, here, Omni, you’ve got a rant, and it’s not really all that different from dozens of other rants that are posted here intentionally. You’re asking for opinions on the moral/ethical character of a public figure. That’s not a Great Debate, no more than “Is Paris Hilton a vapid skank?” belongs in Cafe Society.
[sub]*Speaking of which, the definition for “pedantic” that you cited does not support your usage of it in this thread.[/sub]
You should spend more time in the Pit, ideally lurking. You clearly have no idea of what the function of the Pit is in relation to the rest of the board, nor of what actually goes on in here.
I don’t think you’ve responded to any of the folks who commented that it’s very likely that Bush and Clinton did not write the script for the PSA. If this is the case, how would you feel about it then? If it were known, for instance, that both of these gentlemen were reading a script that was written for them?
It looks to me like your reaction to Bush Sr.'s phrasing is based on the assumption that he necessarily wrote the lines himself.
Either way, I personally see no inner hidden meaning in the use of the word “neighbor” either way.
And this OP probably would have been better suited to IMHO. Clearly it’s not GD material, and I’m sure that tomndebb’s comment about moving it to the Pit wasn’t based on the assumption of any invective in your OP, but rather due to the expected kinds of comments it would generate. That and the fact that it felt like a Reeder-esque complaint about a Bush. Based on the OP alone, I’d have voted to put it in IMHO, at least until people started cursing… 
But I think that a strong case has been made that Bush Sr was simply reading from a script that someone else wrote. Doesn’t that make more sense than your assumption that he was speaking extemporaneously, so even if you take offense at the usage, it wasn’t Bush Sr’s usage? And you have only the flimsiest of reasons to believe that it was.
Nothing wrong with taking the lead from Emily Litella, and saying “Oh… never mind”. 
Dammit, my doubled-up use of “either way” in one sentence is a clear indication of my “us vs. them” mentality…
Lazy-ass slacker non-proofreading Monstre.
For someone who’s so intent on measuring the meaning of words, you’re showing your ignorance.
In what way does calling someone an elected official require currency? He remains a Diplomat in the formal sense and a beneficiary of the office and title, and as such is still held to the standards by which we judge a representative of our nation as a whole.
None the less, he was elected to the office, therefore he forever remains, by definition, an elected official.
Monstre, John Mace please read reply #11.
No thanks. When it gets personal between posters, pretty much everything else dissolves into white noise AFAIC.
Actually, jerk, it is you who is displaying an incredible wealth of ignorance.
In the way that’s implied in the man’s term of office.
Only when asked to perform as such by the current holder of the elected office. Oh, diplomats don’t represent one’s nation to one’s nation.
He’s a beneficiary of the office in the sense that he receives a pension for his past service in that office.
Don’t include me in your insane “we.” But, just for fun, what say you explain to me how someone who no longer holds an office can be impeached from that office?
Nope. He remains an elected official for the term of his office.
Which pretty much confirms what I’m saying: you really don’t understand what this forum is about, or how it works.
I don’t suppose we need to discuss the concept of the past tense.
All the more reason why I avoid it, and wished to in this case.
Evidently you’re completely unaware of what the past tense is for the English language. The man whom you’ve lamely attacked in your OP was (copula, 3rd person, singular, past tense) president for a time, he was (see previous parantheses) an elected official. Now, he is (copula, 3rd person, singular, nonpast tense) not (negative) an elected official.
Care to try again, but this time with aspect, instead of tense?
Dratted misspellings! “See previous parenthesis.”
Noted. But there is quite a difference in tone and intent between a political speech (which quite often has “us vs. them” implications, in the sense of “our side of the political aisle vs. theirs”) and a Public Service Announcement.
I’m sure that the two former presidents got to look over and approve the scripts in advance – in fact they both probably had to agree on the whole thing.
And still, regardless of who wrote what, I still can’t see anything offensive, derogatory, belittling, or divisive about referring to other U.S. citizens in need as “neighbors”.
I think you’re reading too much into it and assuming only one possible context. If the context is the whole country as one unit, then indeed our “neighbors” are other countries. But if the context is that this request for help is being requested of the “those of us who don’t live in the Gulf Coast states” – or more specifically, people whose cities weren’t demolished by the hurricane – then the people IN the affected areas are our neighbors. I see the latter interpretation, as surely the former Prezzes aren’t including “people who lost their homes” in the request for donations – they are the ones needing the help.
You: I don’t like the Pit because they do X there.
Me: They don’t do X there. If you spent more time in the Pit, you’d see this.
You: That’s why I don’t go there!
Um…