As someone who often makes fun of the english language, yeah, I can see where you're coming from. But overall, I have to agree with Lothie: it is certainly part of the president's job to communicate clearly. What bush said can be legitimately interpreted in several different ways, some humorous, some alarming, and some merely sad. If he wants to be understood, then he should speak unambiguously.
I guess what I'm saying is that this is something I'd let someone I agreed with get away with, so I feel obligated to treat someone like Bush the same way. I'd rather save my "Look, he's an idiot!" attacks for situations that don't make me appear to be just looking for excuses to pounce. Bush already gives us enough legitimate openings.
Grammar-geeking, it can be legitimately interpreted in several different ways, but one of those makes sense in context and is a straightforward interpretation.
Ah, I see. On one level, we are in agreement. The difference is that if you agreed with someone, you'd let them get away with the statement. If I agreed with someone, and they said what Bush said, I'd still (and usually do) pick on the english of the person I agreed with.
So, yes, from a sense of fair play point of view, I would pick on Bush's statemeng.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Grammar-geeking, it can be legitimately interpreted in several different ways, but one of those makes sense in context and is a straightforward interpretation.
(no subject)
So, yes, from a sense of fair play point of view, I would pick on Bush's statemeng.
(no subject)