NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html

The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done. So I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties -- both political parties -- to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.


Read the bolded sentence again. Do it one more time. You read it correctly. The Pretzlenit just demanded that the leaders of Congress report to him, as though he had any authority over them. The boy emporer has been in full tantrum mode for a week, but this is just absurd.

The Senate Majority leader, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House: Do. Not. Report. To Shrubya. He has no right to demand a report from them as though he were their superior. The Congress is a seperate, and, in fact, superior branch to the Executive Branch in terms of power and the Speaker of the House is the only Legislative office enumerated in the Constitution. She is, arguably, the President's equal. Dubya has no right to demand that she report to him.

The President can discuss with members of Congress. He can invite them to negotiate. He can not demand a report, as though he was asking an Executive official to report to him. George needs to go to his room until he can learn that he is President, not king.

Why didn't you embolden the conditional word? It alters the whole meaning of the sentence.

Why didn't you embolden the conditional word? It alters the whole meaning of the sentence.

The phrasing, however, an invitational phrase only insofar as it is intended to be polite. You provide an opportunity to report because it is a euphamism for telling someone to haul ass into your office ASAP. Either way, I object to the use of the word "report", since the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader do not report to the President.

I think there are more important things to get riled up about than Dubya's word choice. I'm not defending it, I just find it to be a very minor detail.

I think there are more important things to get riled up about than Dubya's word choice. I'm not defending it, I just find it to be a very minor detail.

Generally it is part of his whole media blitz on the Iraq funding issue. He has demanded a funding bill, and told Congressional leaders to report to him. It is part of his attitude that he is superior to the Congress, that he, somehow, does not have to pay attention to the balance of power.

This quote is small, taken as a single issue, but taken as a symptom of a larger issue, it is not.

But it says that he's inviting them to the meeting, where they can report on so-so. If he just said "where they will report.." then it would be a bit too much yes, but he specifically stated that he's first of all, inviting them to the meeting (which you thought was acceptable) and then that they can report - not that they have to.

Why didn't you embolden the conditional word? It alters the whole meaning of the sentence.

Not when you consider that my boss asks me if I "can" do those things that I was hired to do.

So, y'mean the President is playing politics? Gee, whiz! :p

Love the pet names, though, keep it up.

But it says that he's inviting them to the meeting, where they can report on so-so. If he just said "where they will report.." then it would be a bit too much yes, but he specifically stated that he's first of all, inviting them to the meeting (which you thought was acceptable) and then that they can report - not that they have to.

Just like your boss asks you if you, can give your report on spending for Quarter 1 at the next meeting? His phrasing is that of a boss giving a softened order, not that of an equal asking for a meeting.

So, y'mean the President is playing politics? Gee, whiz! :p

Love the pet names, though, keep it up.

Playing politics is saying, "If the Congress does not fund this war, they are leaving the troops in the lurch".

What the Pretzlenit is doing is playing at king.

I think there are more important things to get riled up about than Dubya's word choice. I'm not defending it, I just find it to be a very minor detail.

The word reflects a thought process. Discourse Analysis 101, when Bush picked "report" as a word, he showed that, yes, he sees them as his subordinates. That is wrong on many, MANY levels.

Generally it is part of his whole media blitz on the Iraq funding issue. He has demanded a funding bill, and told Congressional leaders to report to him. It is part of his attitude that he is superior to the Congress, that he, somehow, does not have to pay attention to the balance of power.

This quote is small, taken as a single issue, but taken as a symptom of a larger issue, it is not.

So? Politicians like to posture, it makes them seem as though they're actually fixing problems. He and Congress can have their little cat fight, it's not like either of them are on my side.

So? Politicians like to posture, it makes them seem as though they're actually fixing problems. He and Congress can have their little cat fight, it's not like either of them are on my side.

So? We ignore the symptom in conjunction with other symptoms?

Sure, you have a fever, your body is covered with red spots, and sores. But if we take those each on their own, they're merely common mild illnesses.

Just like your boss asks you if you, can give your report on spending for Quarter 1 at the next meeting? His phrasing is that of a boss giving a softened order, not that of an equal asking for a meeting.

I doubt very much that every single member of Congress is just going to sit there and do nothing - the economy is a very precious matter, and they don't have a lot of time. And even if they do, it'll only make them look stupid.

Plus, if my boss says "Can you do..." he/she is speaking to me specifically - Bush was saying where a whole mass of people can report on something.

If there is a word at fault, it is really just "report". Remember, President Bush reads the words, but he does not write them. He's got speechwriters for that. A simple misuse of a word shouldn't be enough to get all riled up about.

I think there are more important things to get riled up about than Dubya's word choice. I'm not defending it, I just find it to be a very minor detail.

It's another example of his whole "It's good to be King" attitude. Taken in the context of all of his public statements to and about Congress since the last election, it is just a continuation of his public anger at a Congress that will no longer obey his every command. He is a petulant little tyrant throwing a hissy fit because it turns out he's not as powerful as he thought he was. The Republicans rubber-stamped everything he wanted because they thought it was in their political interest to do so, NOT because he was The Decider and they were bowing before his great POWAAHH! Now that they aren't the majority anymore, he's learning that he can't just snap his fingers and get whatever he wants, and apparently he doesn't like it much.

Plus, if my boss says "Can you do..." he/she is speaking to me specifically - Bush was saying where a whole mass of people can report on something.

If there is a word at fault, it is really just "report". Remember, President Bush reads the words, but he does not write them. He's got speechwriters for that. A simple misuse of a word shouldn't be enough to get all riled up about.

Once again:

A) This incident isn't isolated.

B) The President gets the final choice on what is said in his speeches.

C) Can wasn't the word I was objecting to. Report was.

I doubt very much that every single member of Congress is just going to sit there and do nothing - the economy is a very precious matter, and they don't have a lot of time. And even if they do, it'll only make them look stupid.

Plus, if my boss says "Can you do..." he/she is speaking to me specifically - Bush was saying where a whole mass of people can report on something.

If there is a word at fault, it is really just "report". Remember, President Bush reads the words, but he does not write them. He's got speechwriters for that. A simple misuse of a word shouldn't be enough to get all riled up about.
He doesn't think about them, either, it seems. I would have expected him to learn that lesson after those notorious "16 words."

Ah, but that is assuming that I can take a cure and get rid of said fever, spots and sores. What I see here is that I can choose between fever, spots and sores (Dubya) or have cancer (Democratic Congress.) Quite honestly, both options suck, and I'd rather let them have their cat fight since my welfare isn't helped by either.

Ah. So we're hating politics in general, and not actually concerned with getting what we want. We just want to complain about how nobody is perfectly ideologically aligned with us.

Whatever.

So? We ignore the symptom in conjunction with other symptoms?

Sure, you have a fever, your body is covered with red spots, and sores. But if we take those each on their own, they're merely common mild illnesses.

Ah, but that is assuming that I can take a cure and get rid of said fever, spots and sores. What I see here is that I can choose between fever, spots and sores (Dubya) or have cancer (Democratic Congress.) Quite honestly, both options suck, and I'd rather let them have their cat fight since my welfare isn't helped by either.

Playing politics is saying, "If the Congress does not fund this war, they are leaving the troops in the lurch".

What the Pretzlenit is doing is playing at king.

There's nothing unconstitutional in his phrasing that sentiment the way he's doing.. not liking his tone is another thing. I don't see him demanding anything unusual.

Ah, but that is assuming that I can take a cure and get rid of said fever, spots and sores. What I see here is that I can choose between fever, spots and sores (Dubya) or have cancer (Democratic Congress.) Quite honestly, both options suck, and I'd rather let them have their cat fight since my welfare isn't helped by either.
Well then, who cares what you have to say, since nothing you have to say is actually about this?

As for me, I do care that my president does immature things like throwing tantrums and talking trash at the kids in the other clique who aren't his friends, when he's in charge of a war that is killing my fellow citizens as well as countless foreigners every single day. And I am interested to see every single incident of him doing that instead of pursuing his job with dignity and focus, as well as every incident that indicates that he is not actually thinking about what he says and does in public while representing me and my nation.

There's nothing unconstitutional in his phrasing that sentiment the way he's doing.. not liking his tone is another thing. I don't see him demanding anything unusual.

There's nothing unconstitutional, because he didn't make an actual policy action. There is something unconstitutional when the President abuses Executive Privalege, Impounds funds, spies without a change in legislation (in fact, violating existing law), tries to subvert the subpoena system by using an outside server to communicate on policy issues, and replaces Federal Prosecutors to avoid having his administration investigated for corruption.

And the unusual thing was asking for a report. Members of Congress do not report to the President. He is not their boss. They are his equals.

Once again:

A) This incident isn't isolated.

B) The President gets the final choice on what is said in his speeches.

C) Can wasn't the word I was objecting to. Report was.

A - like speech messups, or what being not isolated?

B - Yes, but he most likely doesn't pore over every possible meaning of every word in his speech every single time. If you were reading this fast without certain words/phrases bolded, I doubt most people would have seen that.

C - yes, but depending on the context of the sentence, report can mean several things (the implied meaning)

There's nothing unconstitutional in his phrasing that sentiment the way he's doing.. not liking his tone is another thing. I don't see him demanding anything unusual.

His "tone" is what got us into Iraq without a single ally that can actually do anything except the UK.

His "tone" is what has polarized this nation like never before.

Of course, his "tone" is also what made his own party lose the majority in Congress, so I guess it's not all bad.

A - like speech messups, or what being not isolated?

B - Yes, but he most likely doesn't pore over every possible meaning of every word in his speech every single time. If you were reading this fast without certain words/phrases bolded, I doubt most people would have seen that.

C - yes, but depending on the context of the sentence, report can mean several things (the implied meaning)

A) Like treating the balance of power like shit, and making himself out to be King, not a leader amongst equal leaders.

B) This phrasing is entirely innapriate. It isn't a close thing, or something you miss. This is done intentionally.

C) No. Report means, in the business and bureaucratic world alike, providing information to a superior.

There's nothing unconstitutional, because he didn't make an actual policy action. There is something unconstitutional when the President abuses Executive Privalege, Impounds funds, spies without a change in legislation (in fact, violating existing law), tries to subvert the subpoena system by using an outside server to communicate on policy issues, and replaces Federal Prosecutors to avoid having his administration investigated for corruption.

And the unusual thing was asking for a report. Members of Congress do not report to the President. He is not their boss. They are his equals.

You said that the Speaker of the House was his equal, but whatever...

An individual Member of Congress does not have more power than the President. The Congress as a whole yes, but it is made up of many different men. So The President gets that 'singular' power. Also, he's mainly our representative to other countries (besides secretaries/foreign ministers, etc.)

I wouldn't call all of those things speech messups though. Do you really think that no President has made a speech mistake like that in the past? That every single great speech in history was flawless? A few were, maybe, but a lot of them have flaws in implied meanings, but weren't noticed, because people weren't looking for mistakes and flaws. Anerica is so obsessed with making fun of all the bad things and mistakes that he actually has done that we're much to eager to point out a little flaw.

It's like the difference of wearing the wrong outfit to an occasion, and having a few specks of dirt on the right one. Bush has made many mistakes and bad choices, yes - but is it really necessary to point out a minor implied English error that his speechwriter made in the first place?

There's nothing unconstitutional, because he didn't make an actual policy action. There is something unconstitutional when the President abuses Executive Privalege, Impounds funds, spies without a change in legislation (in fact, violating existing law), tries to subvert the subpoena system by using an outside server to communicate on policy issues, and replaces Federal Prosecutors to avoid having his administration investigated for corruption.

And the unusual thing was asking for a report. Members of Congress do not report to the President. He is not their boss. They are his equals.

There isn't anything unconstitutional in replacing federal prosecutors (etc.) either, but that's another thread. "Report" in this case is synonomous in usage with "brief" or "update." He's not demanding "a report," as in a prepared document, in this context, but rather a briefing from Congress on the issue. It's no coincidence that he's using forceful language, I'm sure - he's playing politics, no doubt.. and Congress doesn't owe him a breifing. It might be nice though, with troops at war in two countries, that he and Congress communicate.

You said that the Speaker of the House was his equal, but whatever...

I actually said, specifically the Speaker, but the statement applies to any Congresscritter.

An individual Member of Congress does not have more power than the President. The Congress as a whole yes, but it is made up of many different men. So The President gets that 'singular' power. Also, he's mainly our representative to other countries (besides secretaries/foreign ministers, etc.)

I wasn't talking about power, I was talking about authority. The President is a fairly weak executive, compared to most executives, but he has plenty of power. The issue is that he has no authority over members of Congress.

I wouldn't call all of those things speech messups though. Do you really think that no President has made a speech mistake like that in the past? That every single great speech in history was flawless? A few were, maybe, but a lot of them have flaws in implied meanings, but weren't noticed, because people weren't looking for mistakes and flaws. Anerica is so obsessed with making fun of all the bad things and mistakes that he actually has done that we're much to eager to point out a little flaw.

I've already posted incidents of the President overstepping his Constitutional bounds. I'm not going to repeat something for you because you're too lazy to read the rest of the thread. It was not an error. It was a deliberate phrasing.

It's like the difference of wearing the wrong outfit to an occasion, and having a few specks of dirt on the right one. Bush has made many mistakes and bad choices, yes - but is it really necessary to point out a minor implied English error that his speechwriter made in the first place?

It was not an English error. It was not a misuse. It was a phrase intended to assume the authority to command the leadership of the Congress to report to him. That is not a slip up.

A) Like treating the balance of power like shit, and making himself out to be King, not a leader amongst equal leaders.

B) This phrasing is entirely innapriate. It isn't a close thing, or something you miss. This is done intentionally.

C) No. Report means, in the business and bureaucratic world alike, providing information to a superior.

A - maybe that's the way you interpret it, but just because someone fucked up, doesn't mean they treat their position like shit. I don't recall an instance when he is "degrading" other leaders intentionally

B - I think that whether or not it is done intentionally or not is something that our opinions can only speculate about. You have no proof it was intentional (in fact, it is highly doubtful that i was) but i have no proof that it was unintentional

C - it simply means to provide information - not necessarily to a superior.

yes, Congress reports information to the President all the time. But the context around it determines whether or not it was a direct command or a suggestion.

There isn't anything unconstitutional in replacing federal prosecutors (etc.) either, but that's another thread. "Report" in this case is synonomous in usage with "brief" or "update." He's not demanding "a report," as in a prepared document, in this context, but rather a briefing from Congress on the issue. It's no coincidence that he's using forceful language, I'm sure - he's playing politics, no doubt.. and Congress doesn't owe him a breifing. It might be nice though, with troops at war in two countries, that he and Congress communicate.

Yes, a brief. Another thing that a member of Congress does not do for the President. Report is exactly what he meant, in that sense. He's demanding something he has no right to demand.

He can ask to communicate all he likes. But he needs to ask and he needs to ask to communicate. He cannot dictate as though he had any authority over members of Congress.

His "tone" is what got us into Iraq without a single ally that can actually do anything except the UK.

His "tone" is what has polarized this nation like never before.

Of course, his "tone" is also what made his own party lose the majority in Congress, so I guess it's not all bad.

Ignoring that the UK probably IS the only other ally that can actually "do" anything in Iraq.. I believe it's the updated facts about Iraq that is driving opposition, not his tone. His 70+% approval rating at the beginning of the war sort of undermines the idea that his "tone" is at fault, but rather slow progress being made, casualties, and the lack of WMD that sank opinion on the war. It's not people shouting at their t.v.s, "well, he was right about Iraq, but he should've spoken more subtly.. I hate him now!" :p

Well then, who cares what you have to say, since nothing you have to say is actually about this?

How come you think it is irrelevant that the whole system, not just the President, is rotten, and that the end result of this cat fight only affects which special interest groups reap the benefits from old Uncle Sam?

As for me, I do care that my president does immature things like throwing tantrums and talking trash at the kids in the other clique who aren't his friends, when he's in charge of a war that is killing my fellow citizens as well as countless foreigners every single day. And I am interested to see every single incident of him doing that instead of pursuing his job with dignity and focus, as well as every incident that indicates that he is not actually thinking about what he says and does in public while representing me and my nation.

Good luck finding a politician who acts with dignity and focus. All of them are prostitutes in the end, whether they advocate the blind pig method of troop surges or an obfuscated, smiley-face "political solution." Dubya just happens to be particularly guileless.

I actually said, specifically the Speaker, but the statement applies to any Congresscritter.



I wasn't talking about power, I was talking about authority. The President is a fairly weak executive, compared to most executives, but he has plenty of power. The issue is that he has no authority over members of Congress.

authority usually implies power - if someone has authority over you, they have power over you - maybe not a lot of power, but for exampe, since your boss has authority over you, he/she can fire you or tell you to do things.



I've already posted incidents of the President overstepping his Constitutional bounds. I'm not going to repeat something for you because you're too lazy to read the rest of the thread. It was not an error. It was a deliberate phrasing.



It was not an English error. It was not a misuse. It was a phrase intended to assume the authority to command the leadership of the Congress to report to him. That is not a slip up.

Again, we come to the point where you think it is a deliberate 'misuse' while I think it was unintentional. To that point, neither of us can win because we can't prove or disprove either.

A - maybe that's the way you interpret it, but just because someone fucked up, doesn't mean they treat their position like shit. I don't recall an instance when he is "degrading" other leaders intentionally

Once again. I've posted examples of the President overstepping his Constitutional bounds. If you're too lazy to read the whole thread, that isn't my problem. Suffice to say that he has overstepped his bounds legally, and in speech, in the past.

B - I think that whether or not it is done intentionally or not is something that our opinions can only speculate about. You have no proof it was intentional (in fact, it is highly doubtful that i was) but i have no proof that it was unintentional

Bullshit. Speechwriters are payed to make sure that the words in their speeches mean exactly what the speechwriter (and the person who ordered the speech) wants. These people are professionals, not amateurs. Moreover, these are the professionals amongst professionals; the people who are in the biggest leagues: writing for the President. Does a 5-star chef forget to add spices to a meal?

C - it simply means to provide information - not necessarily to a superior.

yes, Congress reports information to the President all the time. But the context around it determines whether or not it was a direct command or a suggestion.

No. Congress does not report to the President. They do discuss with the President, but they do not report to the President, let alone when he is essentially commanding them to report to him on a bill he is demanding that they pass. That is overstepping his bounds.

authority usually implies power - if someone has authority over you, they have power over you - maybe not a lot of power, but for exampe, since your boss has authority over you, he/she can fire you or tell you to do things.

Not at all. This shows a total lack of understanding of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Authority_and_legitimacy

In short: Power is the ability to do something. If the President really wanted to, he has the power to have soldiers arrest Nancy Pelosi, drag her to the White House, and torture her into giving him the information he wants. However, he does not have the legitimacy to do so. Therefore, he does not have the authority to do so.

Not at all. This shows a total lack of understanding of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Authority_and_legitimacy

In short: Power is the ability to do something. If the President really wanted to, he has the power to have soldiers arrest Nancy Pelosi, drag her to the White House, and torture her into giving him the information he wants. However, he does not have the legitimacy to do so. Therefore, he does not have the authority to do so.

He has the authority over the soldiers. And the soldiers are doing the actual capturing, etc.

More importantly, although he directly does not have power to order Nancy Pelosi around, he has enough authority that when he asks her to do something, she will usually do so and comply - because of the fact that he is President, therefore, his authority playing in an influencing role.

Once again. I've posted examples of the President overstepping his Constitutional bounds. If you're too lazy to read the whole thread, that isn't my problem. Suffice to say that he has overstepped his bounds legally, and in speech, in the past.



Bullshit. Speechwriters are payed to make sure that the words in their speeches mean exactly what the speechwriter (and the person who ordered the speech) wants. These people are professionals, not amateurs. Moreover, these are the professionals amongst professionals; the people who are in the biggest leagues: writing for the President. Does a 5-star chef forget to add spices to a meal?



No. Congress does not report to the President. They do discuss with the President, but they do not report to the President, let alone when he is essentially commanding them to report to him on a bill he is demanding that they pass. That is overstepping his bounds.

I'm sorry that I have not been here for every single example of yours, I've really only caught on to NSG several days ago. Not your problem, but not mine either.

From reading his speech, it was a pretty long speech. With lots and lots of words. Since he has a certain time limit to which he must abide to, a simple in/unintentional misuse of one word out of hundreds if not at least a couple thousand will most likely not noticed by him, the audience, and even speechwriters.

1) Everyone can interpret the same things differently.

2) Everyone can make mistakes. The President himself is an icon of that.

No. Congress does not report to the President. They do discuss with the President, but they do not report to the President, let alone when he is essentially commanding them to report to him on a bill he is demanding that they pass. That is overstepping his bounds.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this just isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's a non-issue.

Hey, I invited a group to give me a report of their progress preparing some data. We are setting up a system for them. Technically, we are working for them, but dependent on their function. Kind of like Bush, actually. I didn't even add can. I invited them to a meeting where to give me a report. It's a request they could deny, but necessary for us both to do our jobs.

Bush has a huge list of problems, but requesting a report is hardly something to pretend like is a demand.

Report -
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
3 a (1) : to give a formal or official account or statement of <the treasurer reported a balance of ten dollars>

So he INVITED them so they CAN give a formal or official account or statement of.

Invite is up for grabs as is can. This was wide open. COULD it mean what you say? Perhaps, but, really, it just looks a little desperate to find a problem where one could find hundreds more egregious problems.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this just isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's a non-issue.

Hey, I invited a group to give me a report of their progress preparing some data. We are setting up a system for them. Technically, we are working for them, but dependent on their function. Kind of like Bush, actually. I didn't even add can. I invited them to a meeting where to give me a report. It's a request they could deny, but necessary for us both to do our jobs.

Bush has a huge list of problems, but requesting a report is hardly something to pretend like is a demand.

Report -
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
3 a (1) : to give a formal or official account or statement of <the treasurer reported a balance of ten dollars>

So he INVITED them so they CAN give a formal or official account or statement of.

Invite is up for grabs as is can. This was wide open. COULD it mean what you say? Perhaps, but, really, it just looks a little desperate to find a problem where one could find hundreds more egregious problems.

Basically what I was trying to say.

Also, in the very next sentence, it says discuss with Congress on so-so. Meaning, that if what you think he meant with report is true, the words inviting, can, and discuss all kind of crowd around it and make it a contradiction. Which, if according to you, his speechwriters are professionals, wouldn't happen.

He has the authority over the soldiers. And the soldiers are doing the actual capturing, etc.

He does not have the legitimacy to order them to do so, and so he does not have the authority.

More importantly, although he directly does not have power to order Nancy Pelosi around, he has enough authority that when he asks her to do something, she will usually do so and comply - because of the fact that he is President, therefore, his authority playing in an influencing role.

No, actually, you are entirely incorrect. He has no authority over her, because he has no legitimate power over her, beyond the ability to play politics, and accuse her of partisanship if she will not come to a real consensual meeting.

Basically what I was trying to say.

Also, in the very next sentence, it says discuss with Congress on so-so. Meaning, that if what you think he meant with report is true, the words inviting, can, and discuss all kind of crowd around it and make it a contradiction. Which, if according to you, his speechwriters are professionals, wouldn't happen.

Pardon me? According to me what?

I don't agree that they don't make mistakes. My professional writers that I used to work with made mistakes. Mistakes happen. This one was obscure. I don't think your prmise can be so easily supported. You'd do better to simply discuss what the whole means in context instead of making silly assertions like human beings aren't incredibly likely to make mistakes.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this just isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's a non-issue.

Hey, I invited a group to give me a report of their progress preparing some data. We are setting up a system for them. Technically, we are working for them, but dependent on their function. Kind of like Bush, actually. I didn't even add can. I invited them to a meeting where to give me a report. It's a request they could deny, but necessary for us both to do our jobs.

Bush has a huge list of problems, but requesting a report is hardly something to pretend like is a demand.

Report -
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
3 a (1) : to give a formal or official account or statement of <the treasurer reported a balance of ten dollars>

So he INVITED them so they CAN give a formal or official account or statement of.

Invite is up for grabs as is can. This was wide open. COULD it mean what you say? Perhaps, but, really, it just looks a little desperate to find a problem where one could find hundreds more egregious problems.

Bullshit. He invited them to a meeting like your boss invites you to a meeting. He asked if "You can" in the sense that your boss asks if you can report on the quarterly earning for Q1. Moreover, they do not owe him a formal or official account on their progress on anything.

Pardon me? According to me what?

I don't agree that they don't make mistakes. My professional writers that I used to work with made mistakes. Mistakes happen. This one was obscure. I don't think your prmise can be so easily supported. You'd do better to simply discuss what the whole means in context instead of making silly assertions like human beings aren't incredibly likely to make mistakes.

A) "Professional writers" =| Speechwriters for the President. These are not merely people who write for their profession. These are people who specialize in writing speeches for politicians (who have to have damn good speeches), and who are so good that the President's Chief of Staff thought they were good enough to hire for the hardest speechwriting job in the nation.

B) I assume that your "Professional writers" also were aware of this thing called "editting"? Generally, when you make a mistake in writing, you edit until you've gotten rid of all your incredibly obvious errors.

Bullshit. He invited them to a meeting like your boss invites you to a meeting. He asked if "You can" in the sense that your boss asks if you can report on the quarterly earning for Q1. Moreover, they do not owe him a formal or official account on their progress on anything.

Seriously, after pages of people pointing a reasonable interpretation you continue to defend a claim that it MUST be an order. It's absurd and not supported by the meaning of the words. I've used report EXACTLY in the way he did when referring to people I technically worked FOR.

There are tons of things to bash in regards to Bush, that you would cling so hard to such an obviously weak argument suggests that attacking Bush is more important to you than being right and that your name is a misnomer.

A) "Professional writers" =| Speechwriters for the President. These are not merely people who write for their profession. These are people who specialize in writing speeches for politicians (who have to have damn good speeches), and who are so good that the President's Chief of Staff thought they were good enough to hire for the hardest speechwriting job in the nation.

B) I assume that your "Professional writers" also were aware of this thing called "editting"? Generally, when you make a mistake in writing, you edit until you've gotten rid of all your incredibly obvious errors.

This isn't an obvious error. It's not an error at all. Your argument is based on your ignorance of the word REPORT. No part of its denotation or connotation means that it must be given to a superior or that it's required and without it your ENTIRE argue is just hot air.

And EVERYONE makes mistakes including speechwriters for the President and their editors. They are people, not Gods. You want proof they make mistakes. Look at any number of Bush speeches.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html



Read the bolded sentence again. Do it one more time. You read it correctly. The Pretzlenit just demanded that the leaders of Congress report to him, as though he had any authority over them. The boy emporer has been in full tantrum mode for a week, but this is just absurd.

The Senate Majority leader, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House: Do. Not. Report. To Shrubya. He has no right to demand a report from them as though he were their superior. The Congress is a seperate, and, in fact, superior branch to the Executive Branch in terms of power and the Speaker of the House is the only Legislative office enumerated in the Constitution. She is, arguably, the President's equal. Dubya has no right to demand that she report to him.

The President can discuss with members of Congress. He can invite them to negotiate. He can not demand a report, as though he was asking an Executive official to report to him. George needs to go to his room until he can learn that he is President, not king.


Your point of frustration is peripheral.

"an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry"

According too the dictionary. There is nothing about superiority or authoratative motives. He wants a..... Description of the situation.

Your point of frustration is peripheral.

"an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry"

According too the dictionary. There is nothing about superiority or authoratative motives. He wants a..... Description of the situation.

Shhh... don't try to put facts about the meaning of words in the way of a good attack.

Your point of frustration is peripheral.

"an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry"

According too the dictionary. There is nothing about superiority or authoratative motives. He wants a..... Description of the situation.

Frankly, I think that between the three of you, you've managed to totally read the word out of context to the point that you've abstracted everything down to your chosen defition of the word (never mind, of course, that no dictionary talks about the subtle meanings that we attribute to words that aren't technically definitional at all).

Let's take a look at the phrase:

"report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk."

Now:

A) First off, we have the phrasing that assumes that they owe him said bill on his desk at all.

B) And in context, the report is an imperious demand to "report" to a superior.

Between the three of you, all you're doing is forming a firing circle of mutual congratulation, and ignoring anything said, so, I'll assume that none of you have anything new to contribute, and wait for a real contribution.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushresigns.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushresigns.htm

That's a mighty fine red x you've got there, my good man. How much for it? :P

Frankly, I think that between the three of you, you've managed to totally read the word out of context to the point that you've abstracted everything down to your chosen defition of the word (never mind, of course, that no dictionary talks about the subtle meanings that we attribute to words that aren't technically definitional at all).

Oh, man, the irony is painful.


Let's take a look at the phrase:

"report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk."

Now:

A) First off, we have the phrasing that assumes that they owe him said bill on his desk at all.

Or are planning on one.


B) And in context, the report is an imperious demand to "report" to a superior.

Ha. Based on what context? So far you've only cited as your reasoning for it being "to a superior" the use of the word report. Absent the word report, which you are of course removing from the context of an INVITE and the word CAN, where do we see this suggestion of superiority? That he mentioned the spending bill that Congress is working on and that they are discussing?


Between the three of you, all you're doing is forming a firing circle of mutual congratulation, and ignoring anything said, so, I'll assume that none of you have anything new to contribute, and wait for a real contribution.

So, what you're claiming now is that because we disagree and your only defense "but I really, really want the word report to mean 'to a superior'" that you needn't defend your point anymore and instead you'll ignore us? Go ahead. Your point will still be debunked and you'll still seem to be ranting on about the common usage of a word not being what you want it to mean.

The word means exactly what we've presented. Alone, it has no suggestion of a superior and in the context presented the only thing you have to suggest it is the word itself. Want proof?

The Pretzlenit just demanded that the leaders of Congress report to him, as though he had any authority over them.

Ah, yes, assuming the word report is enough to carry the argument since you don't know what means. Let's look for more evidence that you think report inherently means to a superior.

Either way, I object to the use of the word "report", since the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader do not report to the President.

Hmmmm... you make it clear it's the word REPORT that you object to and that it alone implies superiority.

Let's see if we can find more...

He has demanded a funding bill, and told Congressional leaders to report to him. It is part of his attitude that he is superior to the Congress, that he, somehow, does not have to pay attention to the balance of power.

Yep, you just continue saying it.

And now you pretend like WE take it out of context. You've made it clear your issue is with one word that you CLAIM to mean 'to a superior' and that we've PROVEN has no such meaning implied, by definition. You've got nothing else to rest that meaning on.

Keep squirming, I like watching arguments dangling on a noose created by the person who presented them.

From the same speech -
It's a pleasure to be here at Legion Post 177, Fairfax, Virginia. I appreciate you inviting me.

Hey, look, Legion Post 177 made an 'imperious demand' that Bush come give this speech.

See how fun it is when we take ONE word change it's meaning and then apply it in nonsensical ways. /thread

Generally it is part of his whole media blitz on the Iraq funding issue. He has demanded a funding bill, and told Congressional leaders to report to him. It is part of his attitude that he is superior to the Congress, that he, somehow, does not have to pay attention to the balance of power.

This quote is small, taken as a single issue, but taken as a symptom of a larger issue, it is not.
Newspeak abounds, not only of late. :(

Newspeak abounds, not only of late. :(

Don't revive this bit of nonsense. It was dead when it started. It's an attempt to turn a relatively normal phrase into proof Bush thinks he's a dictator. Anyone actually to attempt to show such a thing would use MUCH better examples. This is perhaps the weakest example for the premise one could imagine.

I think there are more important things to get riled up about than Dubya's word choice. I'm not defending it, I just find it to be a very minor detail.

Ahh, but the proof is always in the detail. It's very telling, indeed.

Pardon me? According to me what?

I don't agree that they don't make mistakes. My professional writers that I used to work with made mistakes. Mistakes happen. This one was obscure. I don't think your prmise can be so easily supported. You'd do better to simply discuss what the whole means in context instead of making silly assertions like human beings aren't incredibly likely to make mistakes.

I was referring to what Kinda Sensible People said earlier on speechwriters, sorry for confusion.

@KSP: It is clear that your whole argument, which really just involves pointing out a tiny and unimportant word, and calling it what you want, is really based upon making fun of Bush, being anti-Bush, and focusing more on trying to find anything wrong about him then on what he's actually trying to say. You don't KNOW what his speechwriters were trying to say, so don't make claims that they were trying to say this and this, and imply this and this, because you have no direct evidence of that besides your own opinion, which in this case, amounts to nothing - what does matter though, is the meaning of the word "report" in the speech, which has been pretty much shown in this thread to have not been of the nature which you said it was.

The word reflects a thought process. Discourse Analysis 101, when Bush picked "report" as a word, he showed that, yes, he sees them as his subordinates. That is wrong on many, MANY levels.

I have to agree. If he had said 'discuss' or something else I could accept it. You REPORT to your boss. You discuss with your peers.

I have to agree. If he had said 'discuss' or something else I could accept it. You REPORT to your boss. You discuss with your peers.

Only if you don't know what the word means. Many of my superiors of reported to me on particular issues. That's consistant with proper usage.

I have to agree. If he had said 'discuss' or something else I could accept it. You REPORT to your boss. You discuss with your peers.

Shh! Don't let them hear you say that! Only the dictionary definition of their choice can be given any credit at all! If it doesn't say, "Only said by bosses" then it just isn't true! ;)

Shh! Don't let them hear you say that! Only the dictionary definition of their choice can be given any credit at all! If it doesn't say, "Only said by bosses" then it just isn't true! ;)

So your claim is that despite what we know of the definition we should accept that people ignorant of the proper usage are right because they don't know any better? Let's see, you admit the evidence is against you, but feel as if a poster or two agreeing with your incorrect limitation of the usage vindicates you. Yeah, close your eyes really tightly and make absolutely sure you keep this image in your mind. Wouldn't want any information to slip in.

It's like the university who fired the guy for using the word niggardly. People don't have to answer for your ignorance of usage. I know you want really, really badly for the usage to be "only said by superiors" but no matter how many times you rub that lamp, that wish ain't coming true.

So here is my advice, open a book, learn the proper usage and stop crying about something that didn't happen.