For some reason, I hear someone saying "oh god" in the end of the tape.
Another slip from the same conversation - seems Rice is going to the M.E. after all.
I think we should have more microphones. I think everyone would benefit if there were hidden microphones surrounding all politicans and ministers, than we'd always know what they're thinking.
Well, it would appear that the problem is that they don't.
He's probably correct though. :rofl: Well, actually it may be somewhat more difficult.
The moral of this story is - watch what you say in front of a microphone - no telling who's listening. :rofl:
What is it with Bush and expletives? I suppose it might be an outlet for someone with very poor communication skills.
Rach, saying **** in a private conversation isn't really an expletive... most people say crap like that (see? right there) just as a way of identifying the worthlessness of the object at hand
Same thing as with FDR, Harry, Ike, "John-John," Lyndon, Nixon, Jerry, Jimmy, RR, Bush 41, and Willy --- and, their predecessors, and, their successors yet to win office --- concise communication.
Well, Nixon used expletives. Lots of people use expletives in private, but not in public.
Politicians will say one thing in private, and something completely different in public - I've seen it first hand.
Reagan is famous for his on-air blooper "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." He was 'joking' during a mike check before a radio broadcast, but it was caught on tape and aired. It caused a slight panic.
What you see now is Bush's true side, which is normally kept out of the public spotlight.
Listening to the clip, I see nothing wrong with what he said. Whats the big deal?
I must say, you always put spin in your threads Rach.
Four letters, one syllable, sums it up nicely --- gets people on to handling it that much more quickly, rather than endless polysyllabic discourses on what to call it.
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.
A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!
Well, B is probably correct. He summed up the current situation in a nutshell.
Given the context - the personal conversation between Blair and Bush, I think Blair probably understood Bush's point. Bush wasn't talking to the public - he was talking to a colleague and an apparent friend.
If "A" has been in a state of suspended animation for the past 8ka, it might be necessary to furnish more detail; likewise, Aztecs, Incas, or other pre-Columbian Americans snatched with a time machine would require an "orientation." As it is, it's a little difficult to avoid familiarity with the roots of the conflict, perfect understanding of what's necessary to resolve the conflict, and full awareness that no one on the planet at the moment is going to take any of those necessary steps.
The ME is a "losen" scenario for everyone with a stake in the region (that's the whole world) --- face, lives, congregations, money, oil, commerce, trade routes, resources, markets --- all up in smoke over the usual "sh*t."
A': Same ol' sh*t.
B': What 'r we gonna do?
A': Same ol' sh*t --- let the Israelis look like Ghengis at Samarkand, or Martel at Tours, or Vlad --- but, stop em' before they actually accomplish what has to be done eventually.
"Sh*t" is a perfect descriptor for the situation, its history, and its future. Perfectly clear and "concise."
Huh? I think both speaks in the conversation obviously knew what was going on in the ME. You're statement is a stretch.
I guess I didn't get the idea across well enough, but "A" would have been me, after not getting the news for 24 hours.
Sure, but he was not giving a speech. Everyone uses a curse word once in a while when talking casually to a friend.
Separate names with a comma.