Originally posted by BP: a small portion of bushisms relate to his pronunciation, and i'm not making fun of him for that
Then be a little more specific. Obvisously, I wasn't talking about the "Bushisms".
be a little more specific about what? i clearly stated the reasons (with examples) i make fun of bush's inability to coherently and intelligently express himself at times and why it's bothersome to me.
I don't even know why I should bother with this. You are worse than Dan Rather on a Scotch bender.
(Actually it's been fun.)
The request for being specific related to your earlier post, which was WITHOUT specifics or examples, and which I thought refered to Bush's pronunciation problems. I then defended Bush's down-home Texas speech. You then came through with examples to show that you actually were refering to Bushisms. If you had been more specific earlier , I would have known you meant the "Bushisms," and I would not have went off ranting about people who look down on Southerners because of how they sound (again, being in WV, it's a touchy subject for me).
I am not going to respond any further on THIS subject. If you want to start a a new subject about "How much and why I hate Bush", or "Democrats YES", go for it. No need for us to hijack a thread when you can start your own. Maybe we can really explore your political beliefs. Maybe I will start one on "Why John Kerry hasn't impressed me during his 19 years in the Senate", or "How Trial Lawyers and a complicit Legislature have damn near ruined the Great State of WV". Maybe we can explore my political motivations.
ANYWAY..................................
The Dan Rather controversy is not going to go away. It's still a hot story.
Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes II last night? It wasn't shown here, the hour was loooong ago sold to Billy Graham (that sort of stuff probably has better ratings here in the Bible Belt than a news magazine). So I had to resort to reading bits and pieces in the news.
I thought it was interesting that after FIVE YEARS of following the story, Rather put Killan's 86 year old former sec. on, and she actually said the documents were FAKE, but oh well it's all true. (I wonder about her politics. As Molly Ivans would say, If she's a Texan, she's got some politics.) CBS has taken the angle that it's OK to use false evidence if it was intended to bolster a "true" story. If a lawyer did this in court, they would be disbarred. It's a bait and switch; who cares about the documents, it's all about the story (of course, why should we trust their stories now, never mind the facts.) The complete lack of ethics by Rather and CBS is disturbing.
Unless Rather and CBS apoligize and Rather and his producer are subjected to some sort of disciplinary action, in the future I will take anything I see from CBS News with a grain of salt. A journalist without credibility is worthless.
