I refuse to let GWB fucking make new words!!!

The BBQ Pit
21

Day? DAY?!?

I hereby declare the next YEAR to be Lame-ass Bush Family Rant Year. Let’s hope there won’t be four more of them.

And really, do we have to bash Bush over some lame usage of a word invented by the Clinton admin? There are better reasons to bash Bush, really. Like his stealing your freedoms and turning this country into a fucking theocracy and institutionalizing bigotry and starting illegal wars based on nonexistant evidence simply to make a profit off of your lame ass.

IOW, growing an assocracy.

22

Go fuck yourself Brutus.

I realize that my grammar in the previous posts isn’t flawless, but its only point you can make to defend your lovely president. This is the SDMB BBQ Pit! If this were GD or anywhere else, I would try to make everything grammatically correct, but it isn’t so I don’t care. I would certainly try to know something about grammar if I were president! Get back down on your knees so you can continue giving oral pleasure to the President.

Comic Genius!

Anyway, this is just a quick reference of his continuing propagation of ignorance. The point of what I’m trying to make is that a person with such a speech impediment, shouldn’t be allowed to be president. Why the hell does he continue to say nukular? I’ve never seen anyone so inarticulate rise to such prominence.

If he ever allows a debate with the eventual nominee, he’ll only look like a fucking idiot. Especially if Edwards is the guy. Oh won’t i love seeing that one!

23

Go on, pull the other one.

Nobody with a command of the English language that’s actually poorer than GWB’s can really get so worked up about it, can they?

Come on, admit it, you’re really a Bush Admin psych-ops specialist, going about the business of tricking people into defending Bush when it’s usually the last thing to do. Or maybe fishing for evidence of people agreeing with the most idiotic attack imaginable in hopes of gathering evidence of blind partisanism?

Just huffing gas, maybe?

24

Yes Larry,
I am sorry for my pathetic english. I still don’t believe that it is worse than GWBs. But let me add this, I haven’t been around English since last May, so you might want to cut me some slack there. It does happen that you aren’t as sharp at your native language as you would be if you got to excercise it every day. Or I suppose you wouldn’t know that, would you? How many languages do you speak, Larry? I speak three. I am also 22 years old. And I wasn’t taught them at birth. I can probably speak better than GWB in at least two of them.

You don’t like Bush anyway, why even defend him here? Am I not allowed blind partisan rants in the Pit or not? I would imagine that’s the place, right? You act like its GASP unheard of to be a little irrational in the pit.

Please take your lectures somewhere they are wanted.

boy you thought you were smart with that one, didn’t you. It turns out that I’m not making shit up. Listen, I am not an idiot, I simply haven’t had a good excercise in my English skills in quite some time, so you can go kindly fuck yourself.

Its typical of many people on the internet, although not so much on SMDB, to try to take advantage of someone by taking the higher ground, when I had ceded it to begin with. Is your life honestly so unfulling that being successful by winning internet discussions gives you satisfaction? If I wanted to make an intelligent argument, of which I am capable, I would have put it in the GD section. If I want just to describe the blind rage I feel about everything the president stands for I get criticized by some loser who has nothing better to do. I know from your previous posts that you consider yourself very talented with the English language. I suppose you aren’t getting enough attention for your English skills, are you? Honestly my sense of self-worth isn’t affected very much by what people on the Internet think of me, so I’ll cede the fact that you so desperately want to prove. Your English is so much more superior and I am dumber than George Bush.

Now you can smile with satisfaction, knowing that your idea of your place in this world is once more affirmed! :rolleyes:

cedes the floor to the grammar king

25

First, let me point out that you misunderstood why I quoted “prescritive.” It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy, it’s that you mispelled it. Of course, this was before you started claiming unfamiliarity with the language.

Even allowing for that, as well as your youth and high spirits, this rant is idiotic. You can’t make a complaint about the abuse of a language without claiming a certain amount of authority with respect to it. If you recognize that your English skills are not flawless, you should qualify your position at the start.

You must see that making fun of a perceived grammatical error, using grammar that is worse by a huge factor, is going to make you look foolish. If you’d started off by saying “My command of English is limited, but even to me, this looks wrong, somehow,” people might be a bit more sympathetic. People would reply, “Yes, it sounds a bit awkward, but it’s actually correct, just not preferred.”

Well, no, actually. Feel free to make unsupportable rants if you want, but people here will call you on it, especially if it’s on a subject that it serves everyone to approach rationally. People will cut you a little slack if you make a stupid and pointless rant about something that is, in every regard totally trivial. People will either agree, disagree, or ignore you, and nobody’s going to get terribly worked up about it. A stupid and pointless rant about something that has important aspects is going to draw fire, though.

A stupid attack on Bush is going to open you up to acid tongues from both sides. Obviously, Bush supporters aren’t going to stand for it, but Bush detractors are going to feel a need to weigh in with criticisms, too, because remaining silent could be taken as complicity, and a stupid argument against Bush doesn’t serve them any-- it’s egg on the face of the “home team.” Of course they’re going to wipe it off.

Blind partisanism is stupid and pointless. If wearing a blue suit with a red tie is a terrible faux pas for the other guy, but looks great on your man, then all of your other arguments are worthless.

“You’re only complaining about this legislation that abridges basic human rights because it was tabled by the GOP. If the Dems did it first, you’d be all for it. Shut up.”

“Well, no, I have a real problem wi…”

“Oh, like you had a real problem with petty grammar quibbles with Bush, but applauded when your guy played fast and loose with the language, right? Nobody takes you seriously. Suck it up.”

Choose your battles a little more carefully, man. There are lots of things you can express outrage over GWB about without looking like a moron. Making fun of his language skills is so pre-2001. Start with the substantial issues. Make a list, in order of priority. Then you’ll get a sense of the why all the grown-ups have moved past that.

When a drunken fratboy is tearing your house apart after shitting in your hat, why waste your time raving about his mismatched socks?

26

The guy says “resignate” and “penintula” and you can only rant about “growing the economy?” Just check out Slate’s frequently updated list for much better rant material.

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

27

First, you can’t stop him from making up new words. That’s how the language goes.

Second, he didn’t make up a new word.

Third, it’s prescriptivist, not prescritivist.

Fourth, you are definitely a prescriptivist grammarian, based on this post.

Fifth, Bush is a lousy politician and a despicable person; his grammar habits are simply distractions from his real problems, though, and mocking them (even correctly, which you didn’t do) does more to enforce the impression that liberals are elitists than it does to knock Bush down.

Daniel

28

Oh, I forgot to address your implication that I criticized your English to draw attention to my own accomplished mastery of the language.

That’s a pathetic crock, and when a crock gets panned for calling the kettle black, it’s not because the pan is trying to call attention to its own polished surface.

You should be embarrassed by trying to use foreign language immersion to explain grammatical errors that appear to have no transliterative basis, and clearly stem from basic ignorance of or indifference to the rules of your own native tongue.

Why would you describe yourself in such unflattering terms? That sounds like the sort of motivation that Rush Limbaugh would ascribe to Noam Chomsky. Are you sure you’re not a conservative schill?

Blindness isn’t the best attribute to cultivate. Open your eyes and be enraged about something sensible.

29

I’ll give you that Dubya’s grasp of his native language is minimal at best. However, if that’s the worst transgression you can come up with, you sorely need to do more research on the topic. It’s not like it’s that difficult to find.

As other Dopers have said, there are many more important things one can use to knock Bush down a peg or several - destroying America’s freedoms, failing to halt the downward spiral of the economy and illegal warmongering to name but three. In the face of these, his vocabulary and grammar are the least of our worries.

30

sorry about the typo with prescriptivist. I am not prescriptivist, rather descriptivist.
Its just that in my opinion, language change is normally made by people who rise to a position of prominence due to their inherent intelligence, charisma, and other darwinistic, survival-of-the-fittest type characteristics. Bush has none of these, and he rose to prominence based on his connections. If Regan decided to use the word “plowing” instead of “strengthening” the economy, I wouldn’t care. I have at least the respect for the man having made it as far in his life because he was popular.
Bush is obvioiusly not fit for such a position of language influence. In my opinion his use of the English language is sufficient alone to bar him from the presidency due to the damage he could do to the language. I think language change is good, but by intelligent or otherwise creative people, not dumbasses that were placed in a position of prominence due to daddy’s friends.

That is all.

31

if someone offered to make you President, you’d refuse to do it because your English is too poor? What humility!

I do.

So if someone hears “grow the economy” used by his brother, he won’t pick it up and use it because his brother it was just his brother, but if he hears Bush say it, he’ll pick it up because he respects Bush so much and wants to sound just like him?

32

I can conjugate the verb “to be” in plural and singular, first second and third personse flawlessly. Bush cannot do that. How do you justify your claim now? All this on top of foreign languages.

33

Damn! I accidentally hit the “Submit Reply” button before I meant to.

Actually, my fingers hit some key combination that caused it.

Anyway, I’ll try this again just to prove that I really can make a coherent post. :wink:

So if someone offered to make you President, you’d refuse to do it because your English is too poor? What humility!

I do.

So if someone hears his brother say “grow the economy”, he won’t pick it up and use it because it was just his brother, but if he hears Bush say it, he’ll pick it up because he respects Bush so much and wants to sound just like him?

34

Oh really? You’re positive you’ve never accidentally used a plural verb with a single noun when a plural noun is between them? It’s a pretty easy mistake to make. Easier than accidentally saying things like “the point of what I’m trying to make is that” and “make up new forms to the english language”.

And I’m pretty sure Bush speaks Spanish.

35

It’s all part of Dubya’s clever strategery.

36

Actually, this is a belief, not an opinion: opinions are things which are nonfalsifiable, and this one is both falsifiable and false. Language change happens in many different ways: slang comes out prisons very often, people try to regularize irregular verbs, people invent words to fill what they perceive as voids in language, specialists invent words to fit their field of expertise, and so on. In some cases charisma and intelligence are at work; in other cases, language evolves due to ignorance.

The English word “childrens” is my favorite example of this: it’s a nonstandard pluralization of “child.” Normally in English you pluralize a word by adding “s” onto it; some folks hear “children” and don’t hear an “s” and assume it’s not pluralized, and so they add a nonstandard “s” onto it. But “children” itself derives from a nonstandard pluralization of “child”: originally, the correct plural of “child” was the irregular “childer,” only the Middle-English folks who heard it didn’t hear the normal “s” ending they expected to hear on a pluralized word, so they pluralized the (already plural) “childer” in the standard fashion for such words, by changing the ending to “-ren.” Does this change reflect intelligence, charisma, or other “Darwinistic [sic] survival-of-the-fittest type characteristics,” whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean?

Sorry to jump down your throat like this, but it gets under my skin when folks criticize other folks’ grammar incorrectly.

Daniel

37

Ca çïango z’ei z’ei losuiz’á. Ca, Bás’, çïpraxam s’aiginá ádhawriga.
(It could be worse. He could be talking like the above)

38

Crappity crap; obviously, that was me, and not the gracious and charming burundi, who posted that. I thought I was getting better at remembering to log her out when I got on the boards :(.

Daniel

39

Bush’s Spanish is shite. He couldn’t hold a fluent conversation. Its easy to tell.

Bush Quotes:

This one is particularly bad considering that he used “that’s,” or “that is.” It is normally understandable when the verb in question is ajacent to another plural noun that isn’t the subject, but he was trying to say “its the birds that are supposed to suffer.”

Another example of such idiocy. Explpain what a spacial entrepreneur is, please?

Here are some more Bushisms.

These are just some of the examples from the last month. I would type more but I have to leave now.