Pottymouth Bush said a BAD WORD!!

[shemp]

Bush Expletive Overheard At G-8 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/world/main1807304.shtml)

(CBS/AP) It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance — including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.

Mr. Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's over," Mr. Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Just replace the "****" with the letters s, h, i and t.

Also, didn't anyone teach him not to speak with his mouth full?

[Unholy_Mackerel]

He's said worse when he didn't realize the mic would pick it up - remember the "major leage a**hole" comment made to Cheney during one of the campaign stops a few years ago?

Is it 2008 yet? :boxedin:

[roger]

At least he didn't give them the one finger victory salute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_finger.png

[JamesDillon]

My problem with Bush isn't that he used adult language in a private conversation with Blair; that seems as silly as the fuss the Republicans made when John Kerry said f__k in a Rolling Stone interview during the campaign. That said, Kerry isn't a self-proclaimed born-again Christian for whom the use of such words is hypocritical.

My problem with Bush is that he's an idiot, as an examination of the full transcript makes painfully clear.

[Apollyon]

This is why we need someone with the eloquence of Clinton in the office of the president. Clinton would have used the word "crap" instead.

[hgc]

If he was eating a pretzel instead of a buttered roll, he might have choked before making a total ass of himself with that idiotic analysis of mid-east dynamics (and before revealing he doesn't know what "irony" means).

I wonder if any of these other big machers actually tells Bush not to lecture to them like he's a 3rd grader giving a book report in front of the class.

[Skeptic]

If he was eating a pretzel instead of a buttered roll, he might have choked before making a total ass of himself with that idiotic analysis of mid-east dynamics

"Idiotic analysis" = he actually thinks israel has the right to defend itself against Hizbullah. Wouldn't somebody THINK OF THE ROOT CAUSES!!!

[Azure]

Impeach him!!!!

[Unholy_Mackerel]

Impeach him!!!!
Oh hell no. Not unless Cheney goes with him, because the only thing worse than having Bush as President would be to have Cheney as President.

[hgc]

"Idiotic analysis" = he actually thinks israel has the right to defend itself against Hizbullah. Wouldn't somebody THINK OF THE ROOT CAUSES!!!That's not the analysis I was referring to. I guess the "Israel has a right to defend itself" is the strawman du jour. I, for one, agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, and vigorously too. I just wish we had a president with the inclination and ability to lead an international diplomatic effort to keep this from spreading into a wider, regional war. Bush's analysis of just tell Syria to cut it out really worries me.

[senorpogo]

That said, Kerry isn't a self-proclaimed born-again Christian for whom the use of such words is hypocritical.

Can born-again Christians not swear? I know they shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain, but it-shay really doesn't have anything to do with the Lord.

I really don't understand how the American populace expects Bush or any other elected official to act. On one hand, they have to appear like they're an everyday kind of guy that the voters can relate too, but then if they display the qualities of an everyday kind of guy - like the tendency to drop a four letter word in a private conversation now and again - they get slammed for it.

[KingMerv00]

Heh, they are already calling it "The sh_t heard round the world."

:D

[hgc]

That said, Kerry isn't a self-proclaimed born-again Christian for whom the use of such words is hypocritical.I didn't know that Catholics went around referring to themselves as "born again." Got a link to where Kerry self-proclaimed such?

[senorpogo]

I just wish we had a president with the inclination and ability to lead an international diplomatic effort to keep this from spreading into a wider, regional war. Bush's analysis of just tell Syria to cut it out really worries me.

He said that he wants to get Syria to get Hezbollah to cut it out. A slight difference. Putting pressure on the supporters of Hezbollah in hopes that they'll in turn put pressure on the group itself seems like a legitimate strategy.

[Tailgater]

Bush Expletive Overheard At G-8 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/world/main1807304.shtml)



Just replace the "****" with the letters s, h, i and t.

Also, didn't anyone teach him not to speak with his mouth full?

My vote for president with the worst potty mouth has to be LBJ. Cussing with food in your mouth is a Texas thing I guess.

[JamesDillon]

I didn't know that Catholics went around referring to themselves as "born again." Got a link to where Kerry self-proclaimed such?
hgc,

Go read up on the distinction between "is" and "isn't" and get back to me.

[JamesDillon]

Can born-again Christians not swear? I know they shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain, but it-shay really doesn't have anything to do with the Lord.
I'm pretty sure the Bible says something about not using coarse language. I recall that, back when I was a born-again Christian, use of such language was certainly frowned upon as inappropriate and, therefore, sinful.

I really don't understand how the American populace expects Bush or any other elected official to act. On one hand, they have to appear like they're an everyday kind of guy that the voters can relate too, but then if they display the qualities of an everyday kind of guy - like the tendency to drop a four letter word in a private conversation now and again - they get slammed for it.
Well, first of all, as I stated above, I don't really have a problem with Bush using this kind of language aside from the fact that it seems a little bit hypocritical given his very public profession of faith. That said, I certainly don't want an elected official who's a "regular guy." I prefer for my leaders to be held to a higher standard than that.

[LeFevre]

hgc,

Go read up on the distinction between "is" and "isn't" and get back to me.
What is the definition of, "is"? :p You knew it was commin'!

[Cylinder]

I just wish we had a president with the inclination and ability to lead an international diplomatic effort to keep this from spreading into a wider, regional war. Bush's analysis of just tell Syria to cut it out really worries me.

Yikes. Maybe it's you that does not understand the dynamic.

Hezbollah has no real reason - other than Israeli GBUs - to put an end to this mess. The US should never hold direct talks with Hezbollah - that would mean you come with a reward for their bad behavior while kicking our best ally in the region squarely in the nards.

Israel is not about to sit down with Hezbollah. Rightly - they've already given their share in the UN.

Syria and Iran have the only real leverage over Hezbollah and Syria holds a hell of a lot less cards than does Iran.

[senorpogo]

I'm pretty sure the Bible says something about not using coarse language. I recall that, back when I was a born-again Christian, use of such language was certainly frowned upon as inappropriate and, therefore, sinful.

As a catholic all I was ever taught as biblical code on swearing was "thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain". Some people and sects of christianity may interpret this as "no swearing", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Bush's religion prohibits him from dropping the occassional swear word (as long as it doesn't target the Lord).

[JamesDillon]

As a catholic all I was ever taught as biblical code on swearing was "thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain". Some people and sects of christianity may interpret this as "no swearing", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Bush's religion prohibits him from dropping the occassional swear word (as long as it doesn't target the Lord).
Catholicism is more permissive about that (as with a lot of other things, such as alcohol consumption), but fundamentalist Protestantism in all the various strains with which I'm familiar would say that a Christian shouldn't use such language. Maybe Bush's particular brand doesn't subscribe to that proscription, but I'd be a little surprised to hear that.

[Tricky]

As a catholic all I was ever taught as biblical code on swearing was "thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain". Some people and sects of christianity may interpret this as "no swearing", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Bush's religion prohibits him from dropping the occassional swear word (as long as it doesn't target the Lord).
Yeah, I was always confused about that too. I mean, suppose you really feel better after saying it? That means that it wasn't in vain, doesn't it?

[senorpogo]

Catholicism is more permissive about that (as with a lot of other things, such as alcohol consumption), but fundamentalist Protestantism in all the various strains with which I'm familiar would say that a Christian shouldn't use such language. Maybe Bush's particular brand doesn't subscribe to that proscription, but I'd be a little surprised to hear that.

True. I just think that, even if his brand of Christ worship prohibits such language, calling him a hypocrite for breaking such a small rule seems unfair. If such actions made a follower a hypocrite then 99.9% of people following any ideology would fall into the category (and maybe they do).

It is worth noting that Bush acts in other ways that -to me at least- seem to be contrary to his religious beliefs and of a much more grave nature.

[hgc]

Yikes. Maybe it's you that does not understand the dynamic.

Hezbollah has no real reason - other than Israeli GBUs - to put an end to this mess. The US should never hold direct talks with Hezbollah - that would mean you come with a reward for their bad behavior while kicking our best ally in the region squarely in the nards.

Israel is not about to sit down with Hezbollah. Rightly - they've already given their share in the UN.

Syria and Iran have the only real leverage over Hezbollah and Syria holds a hell of a lot less cards than does Iran.On the one hand, you suggest that I don't understand the dynamic, and then you get to the point that Syria isn't the only, or even the senior, driving force behind Hezbollah. So you must have changed your mind somewhere in the middle of your post. Your apology, though unexpressed, is accepted.

[hgc]

hgc,

Go read up on the distinction between "is" and "isn't" and get back to me.I do not DO contractions!

[Regnad Kcin]

As a catholic all I was ever taught as biblical code on swearing was "thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain". Some people and sects of christianity may interpret this as "no swearing", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Bush's religion prohibits him from dropping the occassional swear word (as long as it doesn't target the Lord).The distinction, as I understand it, is such:

Swearing: taking the Lord's name in vain
Cursing: everything else

Also, swearing is considered a subset of cussing. "G-D" is both a cuss and a swear, but "damn" is just a cuss.

All this being said, his defenders will insist Mr. Bush is still right with his "higher father."

[JamesDillon]

True. I just think that, even if his brand of Christ worship prohibits such language, calling him a hypocrite for breaking such a small rule seems unfair. If such actions made a follower a hypocrite then 99.9% of people following any ideology would fall into the category (and maybe they do).

It is worth noting that Bush acts in other ways that -to me at least- seem to be contrary to his religious beliefs and of a much more grave nature.
I agree. The main point of my post was that I consider Bush's apparent stupidity to be a much greater problem than his language in the transcript. There are degrees of hypocrisy and I definitely think that using a curse word is a pretty minor offense, and that it is being blown out of proportion by the coverage of this story in the media today. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise; I only meant that, to the extent Bush is subject to criticism at all over the language thing, it's because it appears inconsistent with the religious views to which he professes to subscribe. Certainly many of his actions are far more hypocritical than this, though.

[senorpogo]

"Russia's big and so is China. Yo Blair, what're you doing? Are you leaving?"

Bush amuses me to no end. I would seriously love to hang out with the guy.

[Skeptic]

My vote for president with the worst potty mouth had to be LBJ.

Truman wasn't far behind.

Of course, when someone you like uses such language, it's being "earthly" and "charming".

[Cylinder]

...then you get to the point that Syria isn't the only, or even the senior, driving force behind Hezbollah. So you must have changed your mind somewhere in the middle of your post.

Remind me to invite you over for poker night.

[Apollyon]

Truman wasn't far behind.

Of course, when someone you like uses such language, it's being "earthly" and "charming".
Very likely the word you were looking for was "earthy."

One can only hope that every president is of this world. :)

[Cylinder]

One can only hope that every president is of this world. :)

I, for one, welcome our alien overlords.

[Apollyon]

I, for one, welcome our alien overlords.
Just as long as they register first. Illegal aliens are unwelcome here.

[Darat]

I apologise for how inarticulate Blair is.

In the UK this lets you see and hear it all:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=5187630

[Abdul Alhazred]

My vote for president with the worst potty mouth has to be LBJ. Cussing with food in your mouth is a Texas thing I guess.

That lets Bush off the hook. He's from Connecticut. :rolleyes:

[Apollyon]

I apologise for how inarticulate Blair is.

In the UK this lets you see and hear it all:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=5187630
Nice to see and hear the actual incident. However, I wanted to reach across the Atlantic and slap Baria Alamuddin. What a complete bunch of malarky she was spewing. "Lighthearted?" Give me a break. Bush may have been gauche and ill-mannered in his speaking but the essense of what he said wasn't wrong. Then she goes on to make out Israel as the bad guy in this? It's exactly spin like that that erodes the credibility of the Beeb in my eyes.

[Skeptic]

Than again, maybe the word Bush used was "Shiite"...

[Brown]

It's sad that people are getting so bent out of shape by a "naughty word."

What is even more offensive is that the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister look like clueless buffoons.

It's bad enough watching the President of the United States chew with his mouth open (at a formal event, at that). It's worse to see that he doesn't even pretend to have an understanding of the situation.

And yet, perversely, it's almost a relief to see that the President doesn't mention Armageddon (or Megiddo, as it is called in the Old Testament).

[Regnad Kcin]

Forgive me if I pine for the days when one could enjoy glorious bon mots such as what tripped off the tongue of our esteemed vice-president, the Honorable Richard Cheney: "Go f*** yourself."

[andyandy]

Nice to see and hear the actual incident. However, I wanted to reach across the Atlantic and slap Baria Alamuddin. What a complete bunch of malarky she was spewing. "Lighthearted?" Give me a break. Bush may have been gauche and ill-mannered in his speaking but the essense of what he said wasn't wrong. Then she goes on to make out Israel as the bad guy in this? It's exactly spin like that that erodes the credibility of the Beeb in my eyes.

why does it erode the BBC's credibility? They have a guest on to give her opinion on the topic - in this case Ms Baria from Al Havat.....

later on they'll have a guest from israel or the US state dept......

the only format difference from the US approach is not to have them both on at the same time....which (IMO) is an improvement - as the US model generally degenerates into a tiresome "who can shout louder" contest.....

true, it does mean you have to watch the news for longer than 2 minute soundbites, but to get any kind of understanding on a news topic you should be prepared to do that anyway....

[Azure]

Oh hell no. Not unless Cheney goes with him, because the only thing worse than having Bush as President would be to have Cheney as President.

I'm sure your life has taken a turn for the worse since Bush became President.

[Apollyon]

why does it erode the BBC's credibility? They have a guest on to give her opinion on the topic - in this case Ms Baria from Al Havat.....

later on they'll have a guest from israel or the US state dept......

the only format difference from the US approach is not to have them both on at the same time....which (IMO) is an improvement - as the US model generally degenerates into a tiresome "who can shout louder" contest.....

true, it does mean you have to watch the news for longer than 2 minute soundbites, but to get any kind of understanding on a news topic you should be prepared to do that anyway....
Hmmm

As I look at the BBC coverage on this I don't see a whole lot from the Israeli pov. Most articles talk of the Lebanese dead, the Israeli bombs killing civilians, and we even have a nice primer on Hezbollah.

Oh, wait. Here's a BBC article on Israel:

Israel vows no let-up on Lebanon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5188420.stm)

:rolleyes:

[gumboot]

Good lord. The South Park movie was right.

Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!

Gasp. Bush said a bad word. Hang 'em high!

-Andrew

[Art Vandelay]

Isn't this essentially espionage? Bush had an expectation that his conversation was private, yet his private conversation was released. How is this different from inviting people over to my house for a party, then disseminating tapes of their private conversations?

He's said worse when he didn't realize the mic would pick it up - remember the "major leage a**hole" comment made to Cheney during one of the campaign stops a few years ago?Weird how people talk about Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. interchangeably.

Syria and Iran have the only real leverage over Hezbollah and Syria holds a hell of a lot less cards than does Iran.Arguably, that should be "fewer cards".

Yeah, I was always confused about that too. I mean, suppose you really feel better after saying it? That means that it wasn't in vain, doesn't it?Suppose that some parents were lobbying for harsher laws, and said that it's so that their daughter's death would not be in vain. Would you say "Well, the guy who killed her enjoyed it, so it's already not in vain"?

The distinction, as I understand it, is such:

Swearing: taking the Lord's name in vain
Cursing: everything else

Also, swearing is considered a subset of cussing. "G-D" is both a cuss and a swear, but "damn" is just a cuss.There are many different words, but there meanings get blurred. Literally speaking, the words are:
Swearing: giving a solemn declaration
Curse: an appeal for misfortune
Profanity: using something that should be sacred used in a manner that violates its sanctity
Obscenity: Something deeply offensive

Note that "cuss" has a meaning very close to "curse", but it is slightly different.

So "damn" could be a curse or a profanity, but it's not an obscenity. "F---" is an obscenity, but it's not a profanity. "S---" is not a curse, profanity, or an obscenity.

[TragicMonkey]

"S---" is not a curse, profanity, or an obscenity.

It's a vulgarity. Especially if you do it in public.

I mean, say it in public. Doing it in public is rather more than just vulgar. Funny, but vulgar. Although I have to say that if this president were to try to outdo his own father in the matter of expelling bodily products over foreign dignitaries, that would be one hell of a one-upmanship.

[hgc]

Isn't this essentially espionage? Bush had an expectation that his conversation was private, yet his private conversation was released. How is this different from inviting people over to my house for a party, then disseminating tapes of their private conversations?....Who committed espionage in this scenario?

Perhaps if Bush had blurted out the name of a CIA agent into an open mic, he would've blessed the entire thing as copacetic.

[Regnad Kcin]

Rule #1 when in the vicinity of a microphone: Treat it as if it's always on.

[Azure]

It's a vulgarity. Especially if you do it in public.

I mean, say it in public. Doing it in public is rather more than just vulgar. Funny, but vulgar. Although I have to say that if this president were to try to outdo his own father in the matter of expelling bodily products over foreign dignitaries, that would be one hell of a one-upmanship.

It refers to something everyone knows about, and everyone gets rid of daily. What is wrong with saying it?

[Art Vandelay]

Daily? Wow, you sure are getting a lot of fiber.

[Azure]

Daily? Wow, you sure are getting a lot of fiber.

I was gonna Google it, but my filter didn't let me. :(

[Achán hiNidráne]

Personally, I don't give a r-t's a-- if anyone, up to and including world leaders, use "vulgar" or "obscene" language. (Whatever the Hell "vulgar" and "obscene" means. Those concepts only have meaning to bluenosed neurotics obsessed with telling everyone what they can say.) I rather be led by someone who can honestly and shamelessly cuss like a drunken sailor than some uptight, nose-in-the-air prude who uses "cultured" English.

My only complaint is that Dubbya comes for the side of the American political spectrum that screams bloody murder at a "wardrobe malfunctions" during SuperBowl (TM) half-time shows. You'd think their proclaimed savior of American morals and values would use the same provincial baby-talk that the church going puritans who voted for him use.

I'll make a bargain with you folks on the Right: I'll happily ignore the President's use of colorful language if you guys stop telling me what I can say, think, read, write, or who I can have sex with. OK?

Nah, I didn't think so.

[Meadmaker]

As a catholic all I was ever taught as biblical code on swearing was "thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain". Some people and sects of christianity may interpret this as "no swearing", but I don't think it necessarily follows that Bush's religion prohibits him from dropping the occassional swear word (as long as it doesn't target the Lord).

FWIW, the Jews interpret the "in vain" to mean something akin to "casually, unless you really mean it", or something vaguely like that. I don't know the Hebrew, so someone truly Jewish can correct me, but in practice it means "except while praying". That's why some observant Jews write G_d all over the place, because saying or writing "God" would be using the Lord's name "in vain". (Over in the religion forum, it was decided that G_d was pronouned "Gunderscored".)

There's no biblical prohibition against using scatalogical terms to describe actions.

I think I'd rather have him swearing about Syrians than talking about pigs during a press conference.

[Ladewig]

It's bad enough watching the President of the United States chew with his mouth open (at a formal event, at that).


I finally saw the clip. He does look a bit unsophisticated.

[Art Vandelay]

My only complaint is that Dubbya comes for the side of the American political spectrum that screams bloody murder at a "wardrobe malfunctions" during SuperBowl (TM) half-time shows.If he had used the word during the SuperBowl, or if the footage of Janet Jackson's boob had been taped in situation in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, your comparison would have more weight.

[JamesDillon]

There's no biblical prohibition against using scatalogical terms to describe actions.

That's definitely not true under the standard Protestant interpretation of the Bible. One website argues as follows:
It is definitely a sin to swear (curse, cuss, etc.). The Bible makes this abundantly clear. Ephesians 4:29 tells us, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." 1 Peter 3:10 declares, "For, Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech." James 3:9-12 summarizes the issue, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
http://www.gotquestions.org/cussing-swearing.html

As I noted above, back in my own fundamentalist days it was universally understood by everyone I knew who shared those beliefs that the use of such language was an offense to God. That's not to say it never happened, but it was certainly acknowledged as something wrong and immoral. As I noted above, it may be the case that Bush's particular brand of fundamentalism doesn't regard such language as sinful, but I'd like to see some support for that proposition beyond mere speculation. It certainly is not the case that mainstream Protestantism is ok with such language.

[Skeptic]

This is one of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. For Catholics, it is blasphemy that is bad--obscenity is not that bad. For Protestants, its seems, it's almost the opposite.

Dante's Inferno, for instance, has a lot of bad words in it (including a demon "making a trumpet of his ass", sinners stuck up to their neck in excrement, etc, Muhammad being split open from the neck "to the place from which we fart", and so on. The demon's name, by the way, is Malacoda, which could be colloquially translated as "bad-ass".) Yet it is not blasphemous (but rather the opposite). Nothing similar could be found in, say, Shakespeare.

[JamesDillon]

This is one of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. For Catholics, it is blasphemy that is bad--obscenity is not that bad. For Protestants, its seems, it's almost the opposite.

Dante's Inferno, for instance, has a lot of bad words in it (including a demon "making a trumpet of his ass", sinners stuck up to their neck in excrement, etc, Muhammad being split open from the neck "to the place from which we fart", and so on. The demon's name, by the way, is Malacoda, which could be colloquially translated as "bad-ass".) Yet it is not blasphemous (but rather the opposite). Nothing similar could be found in, say, Shakespeare.
That's an excellent point, and comes out even more clearly in comparing Shakespeare to Chaucer-- both writing in English, before and after the Reformation. Chaucer is full of vulgarity, whereas Shakespeare is full of bawdy jokes but his language is much less vulgar.

[chocolatepossum]

If most of the BBC website stories are about Lebanese civilian casualties as opposed to Israelis, maybe that's because there are more of the former?

The article you linked to doesn't seem to be from any pov - it's a factual piece of reporting not an opinion piece. In any case, it contains the quote

Civilian casualties are mounting on both sides of the border

So they aren't totally ignoring Israeli casualties.

For the record I did share your urge to slap the lebanese reporter they had on, but I also happen to think the BBC is pretty good as an impartial news source, and the fact that accusations of bias get thrown at it by both sides suggests to me they may be doing something right.

[andyandy]

Hmmm

As I look at the BBC coverage on this I don't see a whole lot from the Israeli pov. Most articles talk of the Lebanese dead, the Israeli bombs killing civilians, and we even have a nice primer on Hezbollah.

Oh, wait. Here's a BBC article on Israel:

Israel vows no let-up on Lebanon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5188420.stm)

:rolleyes:

and in that article you have a quote from Ehud

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the attacks on Lebanon will be kept up until two captured soldiers are freed.
He also insisted Hezbollah guerrillas had to be disarmed and the Lebanese army had to control southern Lebanon.

"We are not looking for war or direct conflict, but if necessary we will not be frightened by it," he said.

followed by an assesment of the situation

More than 200 Lebanese people have died in six days of Israeli bombardment. Hezbollah has fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, killing about 12 people.

followed by a description of an attack on Israel

A fresh barrage of rockets was fired at Israel on Monday evening, officials said. One landed close to a hospital in the northern town of Safed, injuring at least six people, medics quoted by Reuters news agency said.

That there are more descriptions following of Lebanese dead is more to do with the fact that more have died in the conflict by a factor of >10 than any particular bias.

you have a link to voices from the conflict
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5188216.stm

with an opinion on both sides

and watch a video of Ehud's speech......

what more do you want? An Israeli propaganda piece?

[TragicMonkey]

It refers to something everyone knows about, and everyone gets rid of daily. What is wrong with saying it?

I didn't say it was wrong, I just said it was vulgar.

[Mycroft]

I was gonna Google it, but my filter didn't let me. :(

Here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=****&btnG=Search

[Mephisto]

True. I just think that, even if his brand of Christ worship prohibits such language, calling him a hypocrite for breaking such a small rule seems unfair. If such actions made a follower a hypocrite then 99.9% of people following any ideology would fall into the category (and maybe they do).

It is worth noting that Bush acts in other ways that -to me at least- seem to be contrary to his religious beliefs and of a much more grave nature.

I agree, little things like INVADING a country and killing thousands of its inhabitants has to rate high on, "things a self-professed Christian shouldn't do!" Tossing away Biblical teachings like, "money is the root of all evil," in order to promote tax breaks for the rich, or the notion of compassion and love for your fellow man in order to open secret prisons where torture and degradation are commonplace. Why stop at religion, he obviously can't appreciate something as vague as a government document saying, "all men are created equal," while openly favoring the rich as he sends the poor to war.

Apparently Bush has turned in his W.W.J.D (what would Jesus do) bracelet in for a W.W.J.B. (who would Jesus bomb).

[Mephisto]

I'm sure your life has taken a turn for the worse since Bush became President.

Unless you're making over $100,000 a year, your job hasn't been outsourced to India, your retirement is not affected by Corporate scandals, you're not a disabled veteran whose benefits have been cut (or a newly disabled veteran TRYING to get benefits), you don't have any relatives or the sons and daughters of friends going to fight in a useless war, you're not a senior citizen trying to make sense of confusing changes to Medicare, you're not chronically ill and require daily doses of EXPENSIVE and over-priced medicine, you don't live in certain parts of New Orleans or Mississippi . . . you're probably doing alright. ;)

[Mephisto]

Oops, double post.

[DaChew]

This is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!

Time Magazine (TIME FREAKIN' MAGAZINE!!!!!) has declared an END to Cowboy Diplomacy. PERIOD! FULL STOP! AN END!!

Bush is openly flouting (EXTREME RIGHT WING FLOUTING AT THAT) the judgement of TIME MAGAZINE! Who the H*LL does he think he is??????!!!!!!

[Azure]

Here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=****&btnG=Search

No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Stupid filter. I was really interested in how much **** a person puts out per day. :jaw-dropp

[Azure]

Unless you're making over $100,000 a year, your job hasn't been outsourced to India, your retirement is not affected by Corporate scandals, you're not a disabled veteran whose benefits have been cut (or a newly disabled veteran TRYING to get benefits), you don't have any relatives or the sons and daughters of friends going to fight in a useless war, you're not a senior citizen trying to make sense of confusing changes to Medicare, you're not chronically ill and require daily doses of EXPENSIVE and over-priced medicine, you don't live in certain parts of New Orleans or Mississippi . . . you're probably doing alright. ;)

And I guess ALL those things are directly tied to Bush.

Maybe those people in New Orleans shouldn't have wasted 2 billion on everything besides the rebuilding process. But hey, maybe Bush stole that money, and is giving it to his Oil buddies. ;)

[Forty-Two]

I found it interesting that CNN published the word itself, considering that I'd read other articles in which the author falls all over himself trying to avoid writing the word (especially if the word is in the title of a book being reviewed). There's a jounalistic rule of thumb that the press can print whatever a president says, so he's not censored in this case.

I just find it amusing that the people most likely to get their panties in a knot over the AP's use of the word are also the people most likely to defend Bush's integrity.

[hgc]

... There's a jounalistic rule of thumb that the press can print whatever a president says, so he's not censored in this case. ...They should open more mics around Bush. It'd be just a matter of time before the NY Times gets to print c*nt.

[Darat]

I found it interesting that CNN published the word itself, considering that I'd read other articles in which the author falls all over himself trying to avoid writing the word (especially if the word is in the title of a book being reviewed). There's a jounalistic rule of thumb that the press can print whatever a president says, so he's not censored in this case.

I just find it amusing that the people most likely to get their panties in a knot over the AP's use of the word are also the people most likely to defend Bush's integrity.

But did you note how they didn't publish the a*****le word he apparently said - ..."There's Adam Clymer — major-league a------ from the New York Times," Mr. Bush grumbled.... I found that quite incongruous.

[Apollyon]

I just find it amusing that the people most likely to get their panties in a knot over the AP's use of the word are also the people most likely to defend Bush's integrity.
Who is getting their knickers in a twist over AP's use of the word?

[Kopji]

The President of the US has multiple roles to play, and one of them is a statesman who represents our country abroad. He is at least somewhat consistent in performing his various roles.

I have not heard anyone propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.

If he has wet dreams about bombing Syria, at least don't telegraph them over an open mike in a public forum. Suppose he had said something like 'heh heh heh, wait till tonight, have we got a surprise for them'. What he said is dangerously undiplomatic about a region that needs a little control, not spin more out of it.

Of course, with Iran waving little BOMB ME NEXT flags today, it probably will not matter.

[Tailgater]

I agree, little things like INVADING a country and killing thousands of its inhabitants has to rate high on, "things a self-professed Christian shouldn't do!" Tossing away Biblical teachings like, "money is the root of all evil," in order to promote tax breaks for the rich, or the notion of compassion and love for your fellow man in order to open secret prisons where torture and degradation are commonplace. Why stop at religion, he obviously can't appreciate something as vague as a government document saying, "all men are created equal," while openly favoring the rich as he sends the poor to war.

Apparently Bush has turned in his W.W.J.D (what would Jesus do) bracelet in for a W.W.J.B. (who would Jesus bomb).

Good job meph. I thought you just cut and pasted that paragraph to every thread. Nice to see a new and rewritten version. Except you left out something about poisoning the well.;)

[senorpogo]

But did you note how they didn't publish the a*****le word he apparently said - ..."There's Adam Clymer — major-league a------ from the New York Times," Mr. Bush grumbled.... I found that quite incongruous.


I was watching some cable television last night (here in the good old US) and noticed that, while they'd let the word "@ss" through, they'd bleep "@sshole".

Once you start censoring, you're bound to run into some incongruity.

[senorpogo]

I have not heard anyone propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.

I propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.

[Forty-Two]

Who is getting their knickers in a twist over AP's use of the word?

I was speaking in the purely hypothetical. ;)

But, as I was checking Google News to see whether anyone, indeed, was complaining about news outlets using the uncensored word, I found someone (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/1173) trying to fill the niche Kopji described.

[Mephisto]

Good job meph. I thought you just cut and pasted that paragraph to every thread. Nice to see a new and rewritten version. Except you left out something about poisoning the well.;)

Thanks, TG. I try to rewrite that paragraph whenever I use it - I think it's important to remember how we got to where we are - you know, kind of like drinking the poisoned well-water again. If we're counting on "history will tell," I'm going to make sure everyone remembers all those little messes that tend to be forgotten when we look back with nostalgia. ;)

[Apollyon]

I was speaking in the purely hypothetical. ;)
Interesting. Hypothetically, wouldn't the inverse be true as well?

The people most likely to defend the AP are also most likely to get their panties in a knot over Bush. ;)

But, as I was checking Google News to see whether anyone, indeed, was complaining about news outlets using the uncensored word, I found someone (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/1173) trying to fill the niche Kopji described.
Easily explained. If there was cleverness involved it was Blair's idea. :D

[Azure]

I propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.

I actually wish he would come out and tell Iran to quit with their whining and complaining, else he'll said a couple nukes over to help along their long-awaited journey to heaven.

:eek:

[hgc]

I propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.Christ almighty. If this is off the scent, it must really offend the nose to be on the scent.

[Art Vandelay]

I was watching some cable television last night (here in the good old US) and noticed that, while they'd let the word "@ss" through, they'd bleep "@sshole".

Once you start censoring, you're bound to run into some incongruity.What really weird is that not only is "damn" often allowed, and "goddamn" bleeped, but sometimes when "goddamn" is bleeped, only the "god" part is bleeped.

[Kopji]

I propose that Bush is just really clever and does this kind of thing on purpose to throw us all off the scent.
:D Build it and they will come.

Didn't this happen once before to Bush? I get sort of a deja vu about this one. You think he'd have a staff to take care of these pesky things by now... except he probably doesn't care.

I mean, who cares what Syria thinks? At the very worst they might not let us send people there to be tortured. But it would be a shame if WW3 started over a slip of the tongue. "Oh, I meant we were going to take a different tack with Iran, not we are going to attack Iran." - Kopji's fictional press

[TragicMonkey]

What really weird is that not only is "damn" often allowed, and "goddamn" bleeped, but sometimes when "goddamn" is bleeped, only the "god" part is bleeped.

I think the most ridiculous bleep was when the Cartoon Network edited out "Jesus" when the professor exclaimed "Sweet zombie Jesus!" in Futurama. But they didn't edit out any of the other Jesus jokes in the series.

[Lemastre]

Bush has considerable trouble reading and speaking, and when he uses words with which he is familiar and comfortable, he should be encouraged rather than chided. It is a step in the right direction. Once he learns to express himself clearly, then maybe he can acquire what some people would consider more acceptable words. But you got to toddle before you can walk.

[Azure]

Bush has considerable trouble reading and speaking, and when he uses words with which he is familiar and comfortable, he should be encouraged rather than chided. It is a step in the right direction. Once he learns to express himself clearly, then maybe he can acquire what some people would consider more acceptable words. But you got to toddle before you can walk.

Oh shut up.

:rolleyes:

[hgc]

Bush has considerable trouble reading and speaking, and when he uses words with which he is familiar and comfortable, he should be encouraged rather than chided. It is a step in the right direction. Once he learns to express himself clearly, then maybe he can acquire what some people would consider more acceptable words. But you got to toddle before you can walk.It's funny because it's true! - Homer Simpson

[Lemastre]

I was watching some cable television last night (here in the good old US) and noticed that, while they'd let the word "@ss" through, they'd bleep "@sshole".

Once you start censoring, you're bound to run into some incongruity.Your example is evidence of some fairly well-tuned censoring, if there is such a thing. After all, the ass is a noble beast, having, if I recall my childhood Biblical browsing, provided transport for both Jesus Christ and his mother (more recent versions of the Bible may refer to donkeys instead of the ass). The hole of the ass, on the other hand, is an entirely different breed of cat, considered not appropriate for public mention in some quarters.

[Tailgater]

Your example is evidence of some fairly well-tuned censoring, if there is such a thing. After all, the ass is a noble beast, having, if I recall my childhood Biblical browsing, provided transport for both Jesus Christ and his mother (more recent versions of the Bible may refer to donkeys instead of the ass). The hole of the ass, on the other hand, is an entirely different breed of cat, considered not appropriate for public mention in some quarters.

If you think about it, adding "hole" to the end of any word makes it more offensive.:D

[Forty-Two]

Shut up, you diapasonhole. :mad:

Hey, it works! :D

[TragicMonkey]

If you think about it, adding "hole" to the end of any word makes it more offensive.:D

"Doughnut"!

[a_unique_person]

Bush Expletive Overheard At G-8 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/world/main1807304.shtml)



Just replace the "****" with the letters s, h, i and t.

Also, didn't anyone teach him not to speak with his mouth full?

That's what I noticed, not the swearing, but the way he treated Blair. It was pretty poor. And now his shoulder massage of the German Chancellor. Is he trying to outdo Boris Yeltsin?

[Darat]

That's what I noticed, not the swearing, but the way he treated Blair. It was pretty poor. And now his shoulder massage of the German Chancellor. Is he trying to outdo Boris Yeltsin?


I think you are falling for the classic "..but other people are different" syndrome. People are people, whether they are surgeons, dustbin men, programmers, tv presenters or hair-dressers. We all act the same.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think anyone else would Give Angela Merkhal a neck massage.

[Darat]

I don't think anyone else would Give Angela Merkhal a neck massage.

Why ever not? She's a person, who reacts to other people the same way other people do, Bush is a person who also reacts and acts the same way everyone else does. World leaders are no different to you and I.

[zakur]

Maureen Dowd weighs in (http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060722/OPINION03/60722012):
Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.

Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?

[...]

The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.

No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE diction, bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.