SInce this thread has been completely hijacked, I might as well throw my $.02 worth in.
No, according to Miss Manners, if you are the eldest of a name, you are NOT Jr. You are also not Sr.
Let’s say we have John Smith, his son John Smith and his grandson John Smith. The grandfather is John Smith. The son is John Smith, Jr. and the grandson is John Smith 3. If Grandpa dies, his widow is now Mrs. John Smith Sr. (this is comparable to a “dowager” when talking about English nobility), his son is now John Smith, and the bereft grandson is now John Smith Jr.
Miss Manners does admit that people get attached to the “Jr.” in their name and improperly ‘carry it up.’ But she says they’re wrong. And since Miss Manners, like Cecil Adams, is incapable of being wrong, I believe her.
Because the semantics of who’s a Junior and who isn’t is obviously of far greater import than the actual OP at hand. :rolleyes:
And people wonder why Clinton figured he could derail the topic at hand when arguing about the definition of “is”…
disclaimer The second sentence of my statement is meant to stand as hyperbole or sarcasm, not be yet another incredibly idiotic way to derail the discussion at hand.
No, the whole point is, according to Miss Manners, you are NEVER John Smith Sr. You are John Smith. And, there is no such thing (properly speaking) as John Smith Jr unless there is a living John Smith. If John Smith dies, everyone steps up a notch (Jr loses his suffix, 3 becomes Jr, etc) and the original John Smith’s widow becomes Mrs. John Smith Sr.
Of course, people will use the term Sr about John Smith to make extremely explicit which John Smith they are talking about. But as far as actual proper names go, there is never a John Smith Sr. Ever. There is only the widowed mother of the current (formerly Jr) John Smith, Mrs. John Smith Sr.
Again, this is the gospel according to Miss Manners, and others may disagree. But as far as I am concerned, Miss Manners is the ultimate source (other than Cecil of course).
That would be stating the obvious and is already common knowledge.
Now that would be refreshing. Let them get eyeball to eyeball, let the games begin. At least it would show they have some semblance of a backbone, and would be entertaining.
I call him ‘Shrub’ when I’m feeling impish, and ‘Dubya’ when I want to refer to him as something other than ‘The President’. The first because it means ‘a smaller bush’, and I think it’s mildly amusing. The second because it appears to be his family nickname, and thus, can not be an insult.
Sometimes, I say Bush pere and Bush filis, but that’s only when I’m being a bit of a blowhard.
Is he a coward? Don’t know, won’t know, he’s not about to put himself in any such position. It is entirely possible that his recusing himself from dangerous situations actually saved lives, the lives of those who might have depended upon him.
I mean no sarcasm here. Human nature is too flexible for permanent epithets like “coward”. On occassions, confronted with danger, I have acted in a fashion entirely in keeping with “chickenshit”. Other times, I have behaved with courage and dignity, though I might well look back and say “What the hell got into me? Begone, spirit of Audie Murphy, infest some more likely fellow, and leave me cringe in peace as old age advances.” He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. Or go bowling. Leer at wenches. That sort of thing.
We are not defined by one action, or two or three. Was it Melvin Laird? “Steal something once, people don’t call you a theif for the rest of your life, lie once, people don’t call you a liar for the rest of your life. But suck just one little cock…”
— We are not defined by one action, or two or three.
Good point. It is safer to describe actions than character.
Still off the top of my head, I cannot remember a single act of political courage that could be ascribed to sitting President George W. Bush: I can’t think of a single instance where he has spent political capital to overcome an entrenched interest or popular preconception.
After 9/11, he refused to unilaterally extend better trade terms to Pakistan: it might offend the US garment industry. He pissed off the Europeans and poisoned the diplomatic waters by bending trade rules to please the steel industry, squandering international good will.
Ok, all politicians make compromises: it’s their job. The problem is that -again- I can’t think of any instances of the current occupant of the Oval Office (43) actually standing up for good policy.
The first George Bush (41) was different. His tax increase was politically costly but showed a serious attempt to grapple with runaway budget deficits. (Clinton’s deficit policy showed similar statesmanship.) As the Cold War winded down, Bush41 started the difficult process of canceling ill-advised weapon systems such as the Navy’s A-12: the Pentagon had never previously cancelled such an expensive program.
In contrast, sitting President George W Bush has notoriously pushed the easy part of the Conservative agenda - i.e. cutting taxes, extending loopholes - while (cravenly?) evading the tougher parts (i.e. spending cuts).
But let’s look at John Kerry: we should address the “Everybody does it” response. I quote the National Journal’s 2002 Almanac of American Politics:
Interestingly, taking a nuanced position on public policy issues, as opposed to being a shill for one special interest or another, is pretty easy to characterize as “flip-flopping”. Among those who believe that details matter, the fact that one might vote for one version of a bill and against another is unsurprising in the extreme.
Who gives a shit if we call him Junior and Senior or the Young Guy and the Old Guy? All these attempts to be clever and quibble over nits is giving me a headache. I myself find it strange that our beloved warmongering neoCons all managed to skip out of Nam, one way or another. One played hooky from the National Guard when it became inconvenient, the other wangled five deferments because he had other priorities. As for me, I was in the Army and threw a party when Nixon called off the war - I would have gone sooner or later. Yeah. Lots of tough talk from a couple of wussy pricks who love to send someone else off to their personal war, but ran like chicken shit when it was their turn. Since this is the BBQ Pit, I can get away with saying, fuck em both.
Despite what the headlines of certain irresponsible media outlets may say, the President so far has not said that “Vets should halt anti-Kerry ads”: rather, he’s dodged the issue by denouncing all 527 expenditures - which is particularly rich considering that he and his wife support a range of conservative 527s, including the National Federation of Republican Women. Heck, the guy has even hosted multi-million dollar fundraising events for them.
Furthermore, when he signed the McCain Feingold bill, Bush seemed to like independent expenditure groups:
Emphasis added. So what the heck is GWB’s position on this?
We will never be able to judge Bush’s the Younger’s physical courage, because it never has been tested.
Moral courage is another matter. Here, I think we know what sort of person W is: we know it from his stance on Vietnam, his business activities and his decisions as Commander in Chief.
Bush supported the Vietnam war, because he believed that it was worth the cost in American lives. Only, not his life.
Moral courage involves taking responsibility for your own actions, strengths and faults, a virtue that sits uncomfortably with GWB’s affinity for insider dealing and bailouts from his Dad’s friends.
Most important, Bush’s cowardice affects his performance as leader of our armed forces:
I like to call him ‘Curious George.’
I can definitely see Dick Cheney in a yellow hat.
This monkey’s insatiable curiosity leads him into ever more unusual predicaments, but he’s so cute, everyone just goes ‘aaaawwwwww…what a cute little monkey. That’s OK’ and pats him on the head.
The adventures of Curious George:
'I wonder what would happen if I…
…bought a baseball team?
…ran for president?
…cut taxes?
…invaded Iraq?’
Just wanted to drop a note saying that I’m listening. Your posts in this thread have effectively articulated a lot of what I think about this matter of differences between groups like MoveOn & SBV, but haven’t actually had the time to articulate myself (not to mention the stand up job on contrasting links). Appeals to equivalency are difficult to address because doing so necessarily involves examining the differences point-by-point, which is a tedious task that really should be done by the one making the appeal. Also, you have demonstrated an intellectual consistency (and quite possibly courage) by acknowledging that certain ads, like the MO ad attacking Bush’s (43) military record, are similar to the smear being perpetrated against Kerry. You have also pointed out, quite rightly, I think, that Kerry has denounced those ads, and that the overwhelming majority of MO ads are issue-based. That said, thanks for posting all of this. It looks to have been a load of work, and I learned a lot.
