L.A. Times Repeats Ridiculous Lie That Bush Erroneously Said Mandela Was Dead
An L.A. Times end-of-the-year political quiz resurrects the canard that George W. Bush “[e]rroneously said Nelson Mandela was dead.” (H/t D.J.) Read this question, focusing on the last line:
And here is the “correct” answer: George W. Bush.
The problem is, this is nonsense. Here is a transcript of the relevant press conference. Bush was asked a question about the lack of political progress in Iraq:
I’ll ask you about Iraq. Efforts to curtail the deployment of troops is an ongoing debate right now. One of the things you spoke about in your address last week had to do with impatience with the Iraqi government. And you spoke about that, but not in much detail. How is that dynamic changing, your level of frustration with the lack of political progress? And how long can Americans reasonably expect you to wait before you take some kind of action that really forces the Iraqi government’s hand to reach the goals of reconciliation that you set for them?
As part of his answer, Bush suggested that Iraq has no equivalent to Nelson Mandela, because Saddam killed all of them:
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein’s brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where’s Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it’s hard work for them. And I understand it’s hard work for them. Having said that, I’m not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government’s reconciliation efforts.
Reuters ran a ridiculous story about Bush’s alleged “gaffe” titled Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark. That story opened:
Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader’s death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.
The silly story was instantly debunked by Newsbusters. But the L.A. Times continues to push it.
Pay close attention, folks. Because this is how they lie to you.
And you know what? I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that they won’t correct it.
Because, after all, Bush did say: “Mandela is dead.” So what if his meaning was clearly nothing to do with the actual Nelson Mandela. He said it. It’s his fault, not ours. We don’t see the need for a correction.
That’s what they’ll say. Mark my words.
Just watch and see. I’ll write the Readers’ Rep right now. I’m telling you, they’re not going to do a damned thing about it.
P.S. I should acknowledge at this point that this isn’t necessarily a “lie” — it could just be someone who got taken in by the Reuters story, and is completely out of touch with the conservative New Media, and therefore missed the discussion over how misleading the Reuters story was.
But if they refuse to correct it or clarify it, by arguing that it’s an opinion column — well, then, it damn sure will be a lie.
You aren’t expecting me to cover your bet, are you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:19 pmJamie Gold sucks ass. In addition, she’s a lousy Reader’s Rep. for a crummy paper.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:26 pmOn the bright side, you already have your first entry for Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2008.
DRJ (09f144) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:27 pm#10 is interesting too. Is this a quiz or an editorial?
Q. True or false? Four days after then-U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales gave one of the most disastrous performances in the history of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, replete with evasions and prevarications, George W. Bush announced that his confidence in him had “dropped precipitately.”
A. False. Bush said Gonzales’ pathetic display “increased my confidence in his ability to do the job”
Pablo (99243e) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:37 pmAt first I thought you were joking, Pablo. Now I see that pathetic Q&A is actually there.
The writer of that quiz, Paul Slansky, sucks ass during periods of extreme flatulence… and is biased.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:43 pmThe entire quiz is insulting.
[Correct answers in italics.]
8. Who is Tennie Pierce?
14. Which of the following was revealed in Robert Draper’s book, “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush?”
16. True or false? Disappointing as it would be to the tens of millions of people who delighted in the instantly immortal phrase, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho never actually claimed to have a “wide stance,” but had, according to tape transcripts, referred to himself as a “fairly wide guy” and had been misquoted by the undercover cop who arrested him.
17. How did Sen. Craig begin the news conference at which he announced that despite having been arrested because of alleged lewd behavior in a Minneapolis airport men’s room and despite allegations of homosexual experiences dating back 40 years, he was, in fact, “not gay,” “never [had] been gay” and would surely never be gay?
18. How did the Democratic Congress take advantage of George W. Bush’s record-low poll numbers?
19. Fill in the pair of blanks in George W. Bush’s quote: “My job is ___________. And as a result, _____________________.”
DRJ (09f144) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:54 pmDRJ, I’m glad you agree I am not overstating it.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:55 pmApparently, the end-of-year quiz does not go through the 4 levels of editors like the rest of the paper.
Wesson (d8d88d) — 1/1/2008 @ 6:57 pmNope. Sorry. They got it right the first time. Even “Newbusters” quotes President Low Normal saying “Mandela’s dead” before moving onto “all the Mandelas.”
That’s it. Game over. Thanks for playing!
Now why don’t you people get back to something you know — like how Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet and discovered Love Canal.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 7:04 pm#9, David,
j.pickens (53ee7a) — 1/1/2008 @ 7:50 pmAre you serious?
Read the sentence again.
I’m quite serious. Are you?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 7:51 pmDRJ,
Actually, that’s false. The interview is on tape, and I’ve heard it. Something to the effect of “I have a wide stance when I’m using the restroom.” NOT “I’m a wide guy” Craig absolutely did use that phrase.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/1/2008 @ 7:53 pmReason #523, 814 why David is not to be taken seriously.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/1/2008 @ 7:53 pm“Nope. Sorry. They got it right the first time.”
-David Ehrenstein
Nope. Sorry. No they didn’t. Only a fucking moron would read Bush’s answer and miss his point: it’s called a “metaphor”. Most people have heard of it.
Bush has said some stupid things. He may even be a moron. But to claim that he actually thought THE ACTUAL NELSON MANDELA was dead is bullshit.
Leviticus (3a529c) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:00 pmHow does he know there are no Mandelas in Iraq? How does he know that Saddam killed them?
steve (71fea1) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:06 pmPablo #12,
Okay, but to me the shocking part of the quiz is how every question is worded so negatively against conservatives, including snide little additions like the Lisa Nowak comment. The truth or falseness of any of the answers pales compared to the disgusting tone and inferences.
DRJ (09f144) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:08 pmHe may even be a moron.
Nope. Sorry.
Scroll down to the first entry under “War of the Bumper Stickers” for the absolute debunking of that notion.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:08 pmDRJ, this is the worst mannered smear I’ve ever seen published in a major newspaper.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:08 pmNope. Sorry. No they didn’t. Only a fucking moron would read Bush’s answer and miss his point: it’s called a “metaphor”. Most people have heard of it.
Apparenty David hasn’t heard of metaphors, even though he’s been a published author for decades, as he constantly reminds us.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:12 pm#16 DRJ, agreed. But that he’d compound that with getting his facts wrong is just…erm…typical of the LAT.
We should be surprised by any of this, but alas…
Pablo (99243e) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:15 pmAnother reason why people stop reading the LA Times.
Alta Bob (ec51e1) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:16 pmLeviticus,
Right. You’d also have to be claiming that he thought Saddam Hussein killed the actual Mandela along with any and all other Mandelas.
Is that your position, David?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:20 pmHey, Al Gore invented the internet, didn’t he?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:22 pmActually David, once again your attempt at an incisive remark reveals only that you are out of your depth.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:24 pmPresident Low Normal wouldn’t know a metaphor if it bit him in his fat ass.
First he says “Mandela’s dead,” then he makes some ridiculous aside about “all the Mandelas.” What on earth is that supposed to mean?
“Mandela’s dead” is quite clear. It means Nelson Mandela is dead.
Which he isn’t.
The President of the United States is a moron.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:26 pmI’m sure that will be their response, but it fails even under that technicality. The “correct” answer has Bush erroneously saying Nelson Mandela was dead.
David E – if you really believe that crap, you should be bashing Slansky for failing to go one better and claiming Bush had erroneously identified Mandela as a dead Iraqi.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:27 pmDavid’s contortions are as lame as the “Bushism of the Day” nonsense that Eugene Volokh spent so much time debunked.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:30 pmEugene is a very sweet boy who should be spending his time on more useful projects.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:32 pmDavid is apparently a larger mental midget than the folks at the LA Times. I found their tone refreshing. I like that they no longer even bother to attempt to hide behind some BS veneer of being a neutral reporter of the facts. They have the stones to allow their bias to manifest itself, in no uncertain terms.
JD (bad43f) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:34 pmI’m Mini-Me!
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:42 pmHow many clones of Nelsen Mandela did Mossad send to expectant mothers in Brazil for implementation?
Were the numbers of white, black, yellow, indigenous, or mixed-race mothers proportional to the population of Brazil at the time of implementation or do we have a civil rights crime in addition to a nefarious Freemason plot to re-enslave South Africa with Nelson Mandela clones?
When did George Bush learn about the Nelson Mandela clone plot & why has no one criticized him for revealing its existence on national TV?
And this is real deal people! Have you seen any “Tell the Truth about the Nelson Mandela Clone Plot” bumper stickers? That’s why the CIA isn’t rounding up the 9-11 Bumper sticker subversives. They’re too busy taking down the Nelson Mandela Clone Plot revealers.
Google It! sheeple.
Adriane (09d132) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:50 pmEverybody chime in with the OBVIOUS response to the #30 comment….
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/1/2008 @ 8:56 pmLurker – I wouldn’t touch that response with Gren Gleenwald’s …
JD (bad43f) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:13 pmLOL, JD. Good ‘un. Of course, the “mini” would be safest, if Gren had to…
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:16 pmThese are liking hanging curveballs, just begging to be hit out of the park.
JD (bad43f) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:29 pmGuys, this probably is an op-ed. It has “oe” in the URL and promotes the guy’s book.
Doesn’t give him the right to lie about the Mandela quote. And I don’t like quizzes as op-eds, any more than I like “Myth/Fact” pieces that are really opinion pieces. Gives them a false veneer of credibility.
Patterico (699c28) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:41 pmPablo,
A CNN transcript of the interview does not have the “wide stance” language. Listening to the audio now.
Patterico (699c28) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:48 pmPatterico: it is SO much easier to reduce a political figure to a cartoon, as you have long alluded. The MSM pushes several cartoons about politicians these days: GW Bush is tree-stump dumb, Al Gore is freakin’ brilliant, and so on. Trouble is, the cartoons aren’t accurate.
I read that someone described GW Bush this way: people think he is dumb but nice, but neither is true. I read the article in question, and it is clear to me that GWB meant the metaphor that “prisoners of conscience” ended up as landfill under Saddam.
Sort of how Gandhi would have done against Hitler’s Nazis. Not well.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:57 pmOh, and JD? Can I quote Mel Gibson, in “Signs”?
“Swing away.” But do remember that the object of your swing enjoys the attention. In fact, I think he lives for the poo-flinging.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/1/2008 @ 9:58 pmPatterico,
You’re right about this being an Op-Ed. It’s #1 at the online op-ed/editorial link for 12/31/2007.
DRJ (09f144) — 1/1/2008 @ 10:09 pmNo excuse for the Mandela thing, though.
Patterico (699c28) — 1/1/2008 @ 10:13 pmOp-ed isn’t license to lie (or repeat false facts, if this isn’t a lie. See my P.S. to the post).
Patterico (699c28) — 1/1/2008 @ 10:13 pmIt’s a really over the top disgusting “op ed”, Patterico.
“Bush likes to flatulate in the presence of others.”
Flatulate?
About the President of the United States?
In the Los Angeles Times?
Etc. It is way over the top. It doesn’t offer an opinion as such.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/1/2008 @ 10:22 pmDavid, step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself again. I know you’re not as much of an idiot as you appear on this thread.
Mike K (3dadef) — 1/1/2008 @ 11:37 pmDavid E. may be afraid of losing cred with his anarcho-syndicalist peers because Patterico confessed to having a “soft spot” for him. So David E. has to attack Bush to show he’s not going soft on conservatives.
On the point at hand, it’s blatantly obvious from the context that Bush meant the Mandela comment metaphorically. Hence the references to Saddam having “killed all the Mandelas”. Bush’s metaphor was not only valid, it makes a lot of sense. Iraq war opponents demean themselves and harm their cause when they persist in mischaracterizing Bush’s statement.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:05 amApparently President “Low Normal” is capable of complex-compound reasoning, unlike David Ehrenstein.
Follow along, David – I’ll gloss this for you.
Hmmm, Bush is talking about only *part* of the reason for there not being “instant democracy”. It’s as if he’s aware that the answer might be complex.
So, someone else tried to equate the situation in Iraq with the history in South Africa of moving to a democratic state quickly. And Bush responded. As if he, Bush, can follow a conversation.
Which is to say, in response to the question of “Where’s Mandela” in regard to a conversation about the comparision of South Africa’s history to that of Iraq, is that the unifying figure of South Africa’s democracy movement was not killed while he was in prison.
Put another way, had Mandela been fed into a plastics shredder while he was in prison, would South Africa had experienced “instant democracy”.
Also, for the record, that’s a comma in the “Mandela’s dead” sentence, not a period. The LAT is guilty of low-grade Dowdifying
and, David, if the Democrats can’t defeat President “Low Normal”, either through election or by policy initiatives, I don’t expect that the Democrats can defeat average Evil.
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:29 amWhy do you mention the Democrats to me?
(I’ll give you a good five minutes to ponder that one.)
Dubbya and his scriptwriters are trying to turn Nelson Mandela from an important figure in late 20th Century history into an all-purpose brand name.
Truly diosgusting as the Republican party had supported Apartheid unquestioningly for years — a fact you fail to address.
No surprise.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:58 amDavid,
I’m impressed at your ability to have your strawmen move your goalposts. But that’s all that is impressive about your posts.
Your “fact” about Republican unquestioning support for Apartheid is not conceded. Make your case.
Or try to.
Cheers.
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:15 amI find it interesting that David seems to believe that he alone has the ability and right to define the discourse. His interpertation is the one that is correct,(or most correct). To paraphrase me Da,”Who died and made you King?”
Gulermo (621247) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:39 amGulermo, more interesting is his need to create fantasies to justify his hatreds.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:40 amNothing like lying AND refusing to correct it. BDS at its finest.
Mark E. (efa0b7) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:51 amThe L.A. SLIMES is no different then the rest of the liberal news rags who can trust them at all
krazy kagu (aef0eb) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:55 amI wrote a post about this on my Norwegian blog when it happened, spurring a pretty wide reaction against the Norwegian media for uncritically floating the Reuters story, which was picked up by a Norwegian wire service.
Due to my post and complaints to several of the newspapers that ran it, one of the newspapers decided to take down their article, and the editor of another emailed me saying that he agreed that it was completely silly.
Then I was invited to join in on a debate the next day on a state channel radio station. I was not able to attend since I was in Greece that day, but some other conservative writers stepped in and debated an editor from the wire service.
I got massive support on my blog for exposing the lie that had been perpetrated, it seemed like the Norwegian readers, most of which hate Bush, finally unanimously agreed with me that the media had jumped the shark.
But wouldn’t you know, the wire service editor tried to defend running the Reuters story, trying to cite the “fact” that the Mandela Foundation had to make a statement to clarify that Mandela wasn’t dead, and that there was supposedly concern among South Africans that he was deceased.
But that was all a big fraud since the Reuters journalist called the Mandela Foundation for a quote, not the other way around. The Mandela Foundation didn’t even mention anything about it on their web site. It was a non-issue for them. There was no evidence that anyone in South Africa was at all concerned about Bush’s remarks, although that’s what the Reuters journalist tried to invent out of whole cloth.
So instead of admitting that they failed to check the story before running it, the wire service editor kept pointing back to “facts” that weren’t. I guess it’s a human trait to not want to admit mistakes, but when you’re in the news business, mistakes will happen, and you just have to own up to it if you’re going to have any credibility.
The fact is, the Reuters journalist knew it wasn’t true. Everyone else who picked up the story didn’t really care if it was true or not. It was too good too check. Too good to not run with.
So we’re left with all the gullible morons who continue to believe all the lies that the media peddles from day to day because biased journalists take their biased editors down the yellow brick road.
Whoever wrote this for the LA Times surely just never bothered to check the background on the story, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. If they won’t correct it, though, then it shows that they are not only biased, but also dishonest.
Seixon (a99b03) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:59 am“an all-purpose brand name.” You mean I can re-define someones exsistance down to a four word ad phrase? And ignore your intended counterpoint in the first half of your sentence? I can state what your meaning was just, well, because? Cool! I think I could like this no rules thing.
Gulermo (621247) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:00 amAsk L. Brent Bozzell.
“Google” is your friend, O nameless one.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:10 amDavid: I am asking you if you proscribe to the theory that intent is determined by the author not the audience, or the reverse? The intent of the author is paramount, without it there is no discourse, just your interpertation, or mine for that matter. Do you see where I am going with this?
Gulermo (621247) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:27 amMr. Ehrenstein, beg your pardon, but when asked for support for an assertion, a response of “Google is your friend” is incredibly lame. It amounts to either “I won’t support my assertion” or “I can’t support my assertion,” without the balls to admit either. Sadly, you seem fairly typical of the sort of mental muscle the anti-Bush Left sends out to defend its positions.
Quite pathetic.
Nathan (1cf73e) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:28 amIt reminds me of the opening line of The Wild Bunch (one of my favorites in all of cinema) : “I know what you meant to do, it’s what you did that I don’t like.”
Qule paranoia! I’ve been “sent” by “the anit-Bush left”? LOL!
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:50 amechoing Nathan’s comment, David, I don’t need Google as my memory will suffice.
Also, you might want to rethink your apparent habit of referring people to Google, as a quick google search shows, among other things, Executive Orders by Reagan regarding sanctions against South Africa, a policy of helping effect change in the South Africa, and – oh – Mandela was released while Bush 41 – a Republican – was in office.
My guess is that you have the memory of a slightly above average goldfish and are thinking about solely in terms of Cheney’s Congressional votes regarding South Africa as reported by Media Matters et al.
and, yes, that ‘goldfish’ remark was an ad hominem. It could be that you’re just willfully ignorant.
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:51 amCleo the Goldfish in Disney’s Pinnochio was one of my favoirte cartoon characters.
Dick Cheney, as you well know, runs this stinking shithole of country.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:00 amhmmm …
I will take this opportunity to revise and extend my remarks ..
It could be that you’re just willfully ignorant, off medications, suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness, or have had four Bloody Marys for breakfast already.
cheers.
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:14 amBumperStickerist: do not attempt to engage David in debate. He isn’t interested in an honest discussion.
Scoring rhetorical points against David is like playing basketball against Vern Troyer. Sure, you win, but you look like the bigger fool just for showing up.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:40 amWell, up until #60, I was entertaining hopes that David wasn’t delusional.
So, Bush is just a sock puppet, and it’s really Cheney who’s running the administration.
And doing a find job of bending the Democratic Congressional leadership into pretzels.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:57 amWhen Bush made his Mandela comment, he was simply repeating the metaphor made by Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Sept 9.
“‘There’s no Nelson Mandela in Iraq,’ Crocker, the ambassador, told colleagues back in Washington. ‘Saddam killed them all.'”
Ryan Crocker
DubiousD (bd8f0c) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:12 amSteverino, the Vern Troyer comment was a hit out of the park. Nicely done…and more to the point, completely correct.
Mini-whatever *lives* to be the center of attention. That is why he posts outrageous comments, changes the subject when challenged, starts insulting and cussing, and so on. It’s a game, and the goal is get everyone talking and thinking about his favorite subject: himself.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/2/2008 @ 10:43 amIs DE out of his depth???
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:17 amIf DE stepped into a dried-up mud-puddle, he would be out-of-his-depth, but in-his-element.
Actually in point of fact, Mandela wasn’t that much of a peacemaker. The Livonia trial of 1964 concerned his attempt to violently attack certain institutions; that’s why Amnesty International could not list him as a political prisoner. In addition various attacks by the Umkhonto du Siswe (Spear of the Nation)the ANC’s guerilla arm
narciso (c36902) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:36 amincluding the bombing of the Maggoss Hotel had his endorsement. However by 1989; he had mellowed out substantially. But the point still applies; Saddam killed almsot every member of the Sadr, the al Hakim and other other leadership clans in Iraq. The opposition was composed of exiles like
Chalabi, Istrambouli, Allawi, et al; and the Sunni Salafi islamists. Leaving a sizable vaccuum of power that didn’t manifest itself till 2003
Good thing he’s dead — right narciso?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:47 amYes, it’s a good thing Saddam is dead.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:52 amI suggest we ignore him. He’ll keep on desperately trying to draw attention to himself with worse and worse dirty-mouthed insults and pornographic links until Patterico will finally have had enough and ban him.
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 11:52 amThat sounds like a pretty good reason not to ignore him? Why delay the inevitable?
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:01 pmWell, I broke down and took a look at David’s site.
Turns out he’s a poor man’s Luke Ford.
–
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:08 pmLuke’s not gay.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:12 pmI wander what David E. would make of Nietzsche’s “God is dead.”
Fritz (babcd1) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:43 pmImmanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Froederich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
There’s nothing Nieizsche couldn’t teach ya
’bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will
on half a pint of shanty was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
‘alf a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
“I drink, therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 4:55 pmA lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
“First he says “Mandela’s dead,” then he makes some ridiculous aside about “all the Mandelas.” What on earth is that supposed to mean?”
-David Ehrenstein
What the hell…?
[The Proverbial] Nelson Mandela is dead. They killed all the [potential][Proverbial] Mandelas.
Gimme a fucking break. You know (or you sure as hell ought to know) exactly what Bush means. To argue otherwise makes you look stupid.
And yes, dissenters: Bush could very well be a moron.
Leviticus (506fe8) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:01 pmI’m supposed to know what Bush means?
Tell me dear, what does “Mandela is dead” mean?
I’ll wait.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:03 pmIgnore him. X, I meant that if we ignore him he’ll ratchet up the Ehrensteinism. If we give him his maintenance dose, he won’t. So let’s not give him his maintenance dose.
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:06 pmAs part of his answer, Bush suggested that Iraq has no equivalent to Nelson Mandela, because Saddam killed all of them:
“Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein’s brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where’s Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it’s hard work for them. And I understand it’s hard work for them. Having said that, I’m not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government’s reconciliation efforts.”
Oh my gosh. DE cannot be serious. He just can’t. He is an intelligent man, so I literally do not believe this man cannot understand the plain and clear metaphor above.
Lurker must be right and he’s just looking for attention. I for one am not giving it to him any more, and I suggest you all stop feeding the attention hound now. Good night.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:11 pmSorry nk, our posts crossed. I totally agree.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:13 pmDavid, as a writer, and a person with knowledge of how the English Language is interpreted, you know that “Mandela is dead” is a meaningless part of a sentence, one you have chosen to leave incomplete to try to make a point. The meaning of what you ask is not available without the rest of the sentence.
You want people to take your points with any seriousness at all here, you must try not to be so transparent.
reff (99666d) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:14 pmYou want people to take your points with any seriousness at all here, you must try not to be so transparent.
Ah, reff, you found the real problem…
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:16 pmYes, SPQR….Casper, the (not-so)friendly Ghost, as played by David E….
But, of course, he shouldn’t be playing since there is a writer’s strike in Hollywood, and as a good little liberal he would never cross the picket lines….
Then again, he if he can’t write any better than he can read or hear….
Well…
Thank God for the Marines watching his 6….figuratively of course, not literally…..
reff (99666d) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:30 pmHow do you “know” he meant Nelson, dear?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:31 pmRACIST!!!
(Just wanted to get that out before David did. ;-))
Pablo (99243e) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:32 pmEven black ghosts are white, so they can’t be racist….since all ghosts are white….
And, I’m thinking, if ghosts are white, but are also scary, and white is supposed to be the “good” color, why are ghosts white???
reff (99666d) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:55 pmBecause you couldn’t see black ghosts at night.
DRJ (29b04b) — 1/2/2008 @ 5:56 pmAha! So you’re saying that black ghosts would be even scarier! RACIST!!!
(See justification above)
Pablo (99243e) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:00 pmSure, go ahead and be the practical one, DRJ.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:00 pmGhosts are not bad. I like my house ghosts. They look after us while we sleep.
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:02 pmBULLSHIT!!!
“Mandela is dead” is a complete, perfectly comprehensible sentence.
Needless to say you’d like to pretend otherwise.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:22 pmIgnore him! Please! Pretty please!!!
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:26 pmExcept, Dave, that was not Bush’s sentence.
See post #46.
Which should present a certain inconvenience to you while you attempt to make your point, as such. But probably will not.
BumperStickerist (350875) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:33 pmGlad the attention hound left. Better w/o him.
Re: ghosts, nk, you have “house ghosts?” Wonder if I’ll regret asking: what are they and what do they do, besides look after the house?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:33 pmNow, that’s a sentence. Gots a period and everything! Kinda like Dave.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/2/2008 @ 6:46 pmDavid, “Mandela is dead” is only a part of a quoted sentence. You are simply wrong when you say it is a complete sentence in this argument. It is only a part of the original sentence in the quote. So, your “bullshit” is just that.
Again, the Marine protects you….
And, now, I will take nk’s advice, because he scares me….he has ghosts…(I do to, especially at the inlaw’s house…and it is not time for the standard inlaw comments…)
reff (99666d) — 1/2/2008 @ 7:27 pmno one you know #94,
what are they and what do they do, besides look after the house?
I can’t say. I have not intruded on their privacy. It’s an almost eighty-year old house. I decided, upon moving in, that peaceful co-existence with a mutual defense pact is the best strategy.
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:01 pmP.S. I grew up in a house that came into my family in 1832 although it was likely built long before that. I don’t know that I could live long in a house without ghosts.
nk (5221ab) — 1/2/2008 @ 8:25 pmNo I am not. You are using his subsequent sentence to prop it up. Both sentences are nonsense.
The man is a raging fool.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:05 pmDavid, the amount of self-delusion necessary for you to maintain your conviction of President Bush’s foolishness could be better spent convincing yourself of something more important, rather than futile attempts to intentionally misrepresent his utterances.
This assumes you are convincing yourself, because you are not convincing anyone else.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:13 pmSPQR, the amount of self-delusion necessary for you to maintain your conviction of President Bush’s competence could be better spent convincing yourself of something more important, rather than futile attempts to intentionally misrepresent his utterances.
This assumes you are convincing yourself, because you are not convincing any sane individual.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:20 pmWow, David, I have not had anyone do that repeat back trick since junior high.
Thanks for the flashback.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:22 pmWhere’s Mandela? Do you think that President Bush literally thought that Nelson Mandela was going to go to Iraq and make peace? The sentence before the sentence in question indicates that Bush is speaking metaphorically.
Fritz (c0b670) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:28 pmI bet if you told David that Bush wrote “Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Clause.”, instead of Francis Pharcellus Church, he would say that it’s further evidence that Bush is delusional.
Fritz (c0b670) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:31 pmDavid, the “Mandela is dead” is a part of a sentence, and it is incomplete unless you include the rest of the sentence. Your statement is a LIE, not just wrong. I am not using the subsequent sentence to prop it up, because the remainder of the sentence places the entire thought into proper context. Please go back to the quote in the initial story in this post.
But, since you will not do that, you prove again that you will LIE to make your point.
Semper Fi…
reff (99666d) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:31 pmBy the way, David, your practice of calling those who disagree with you mentally ill is not a sign of maturity either.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/2/2008 @ 9:40 pmThis reminds me of an old USS Clueless post by Steven Den Beste, in which he said the following:
Did you see that? Did you see?! Dogs reproduce by fission! That’s what he said! It’s a perfectly grammatical sentence and everything! He said those exact words, so it’s obvious that Den Beste believes dogs reproduce by fission! Ha ha, what a moron!
Seriously: David is an author? What on earth must his books read like? Is every single construct in them an atomic grammatical fragment that cannot be taken out of context? Does he write without ever once using metaphorical or figurative language? That would be an amazing feat. What’s such a linguistic national treasure doing wasting his time commenting on blogs for?
Brian Tiemann (975528) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:03 am(And yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition on purpose, just to piss him off if he’s game for it.)
Brian Tiemann (975528) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:05 am#76: And yes, dissenters: Bush could very well be a moron.
Sorry, Levi: the military doesn’t allow morons to fy superonic jets.
Don’t agree? Can you fly this? Bush can and did…logging in hundreds of hours:
Sorry, Levi: the military doesn’t allow morons to fy superonic jets.
Harvard and Yale, the two preeminent universities in the nation, doesn’t allow morons to graduate with advanced business degrees, either.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:50 amFWIW, Bush’s IQ is a few points higher than John Kerry’s.
It took serious stones to fly almost any of the century series fighters. Evil handling, uncompensated for by computers, high rates of catastrophic mechanical failure incidences, balky early generation ejection seats, etc.
PA (baea0a) — 1/24/2008 @ 6:14 pmhigh rates of catastrophic mechanical failure incidences
An example:
At certain flying angles (like take-off) the F-102’s jet compressor could stall, causing the plane to roll inverted into the pavement.
Yipes.
Paul (dd77a9) — 1/24/2008 @ 8:26 pmIf anyone needs evidence that David E has serious psychological problems, check his comment #60:
Cheney, as you well know, runs this stinking shithole of country.
Anyone who would so describe this country clearly can’t be taken seriously–he’s flailing in all directions like a child throwing a tantrum.
sf (533004) — 1/26/2008 @ 5:20 am