Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How do you say Houston?

"Ho" as in "SoHo"

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You remind me of the politically correct folks (back when "politically correct" was an insult used by those on the liberal/left side) who sounded like they were gargling when they said "Nicaragua".

I do that. But then I also am incapable of pronouncing the word "mango" as most people in the US do. "Maingo"? Ugh.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
How do you say Peru? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it pay-roo.

How do you say Iran? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it ee-ron.

LessinRosario, Argentina

In your rush to offer the most sarcastic response, you are overlooking the positive aspects of the Adder Rule ("one must pronounce the name of the country correctly in order to say anything about it").

It gives us a good reason to stop listening to all those fucking foreigners who criticize the US or tell us what to do. With all their funny accents and silly languages, they almost never say the name right.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do that. But then I also am incapable of pronouncing the word "mango" as most people in the US do. "Maingo"? Ugh.

You live in a state that has a city called (but not spelled) Na-ko-ditch. It would seem that you've got more urgent problems to address.

[Adder]

Originally posted by LessinSF
How do you say Peru? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it pay-roo.

I do not expect politicians to be able to pronounce the names of places that don't come up very often. With Iraq, we are now in at least year 6 of an ongoing debate about its future. There has been plenty of time to learn.

How do you say Iran? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it ee-ron.

Eye-ran is almost as annoying as Eye-rack. But not quite.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I Adder Rule ("one must pronounce the name of the country correctly in order to say anything about it").

You don't have to pronounce it correctly, but you should at least be able to get close (ur-rack, er-rack, ee-rock, etc)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
You don't have to pronounce it correctly, but you should at least be able to get close (ur-rack, er-rack, ee-rock, etc)

Tell those f'ing foreigners that. They keep getting the "r" in America wrong.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You remind me of the politically correct folks (back when "politically correct" was an insult used by those on the liberal/left side) who sounded like they were gargling when they said "Nicaragua".

Let me put it this way, would you take a leader seriously if they pronounced it Ny-cure-egua?

But really what I am saying is that most of the bozos in congress no nothing about the middle east, but are not afraid to make proclamations

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by LessinSF
How do you say Peru? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it pay-roo.

How do you say Iran? You are unqualified unless you pronounce it ee-ron.

LessinRosario, Argentina

Good to know I can still talk about the Middle East. I haven't had mucht to say about Pehru anyway since Fujimori went on the lam (or was that Cheee-lay?).

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do that. But then I also am incapable of pronouncing the word "mango" as most people in the US do. "Maingo"? Ugh.

*sigh* Such is Mango.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I didn't see the President last night, so maybe I'm misunderstanding his position: Is he saying that he'll allow White House aides to speak to Congress, but not under oath, and basing this on executive privilege? I don't get the not-under-oath thing. If he wants to assert executive privilege, the aides shouldn't be talking to anyone, right? Whether they're under oath is beside the point, I would think.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't see the President last night, so maybe I'm misunderstanding his position: Is he saying that he'll allow White House aides to speak to Congress, but not under oath, and basing this on executive privilege? I don't get the not-under-oath thing. If he wants to assert executive privilege, the aides shouldn't be talking to anyone, right? Whether they're under oath is beside the point, I would think.

I'm not clear either, but I think that, if called on it, GWB's defenders will assert that he has a non-lawyer's understanding of "privilege" (as opposed to that tricky Clinton) and that when he said privilege he meant discretion and/or national security--esp. with the apparent assertion that Carol Lam was unsatisfactory for her handling of immigration matters, not pursuing corrupt republicans and republican contributers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I'm not clear either, but I think that, if called on it, GWB's defenders will assert that he has a non-lawyer's understanding of "privilege" (as opposed to that tricky Clinton) and that when he said privilege he meant discretion and/or national security--esp. with the apparent assertion that Carol Lam was unsatisfactory for her handling of immigration matters, not pursuing corrupt republicans and republican contributers.

Maybe the notion is that if they're talking informally, they can simply decline to answer questions they don't want to answer. Although they could do that under oath, I suppose.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't see the President last night, so maybe I'm misunderstanding his position: Is he saying that he'll allow White House aides to speak to Congress, but not under oath, and basing this on executive privilege? I don't get the not-under-oath thing. If he wants to assert executive privilege, the aides shouldn't be talking to anyone, right? Whether they're under oath is beside the point, I would think.

His argument is primarily that Democrats are partisan, anyone who disagrees with him is partisan, and that this partisanship should not continue. Partisan was the watchword of the night, because, you know, Congress is very partisan now that it is filled with Democrats, and now that they are doing things like questioning him, which if done in public is partisan but which he'll permit to be done behind closed doors, with no one taking notes.

I believe the proper response to the "Partisan" mantra is "accountability", though perhaps we sprinkle some variety in our responses by also emphasizing "honesty" and "the American people", and by regularly closing our posts with "What's Bush afraid of? "

So, what's Bush afraid of?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You live in a state that has a city called (but not spelled) Na-ko-ditch. It would seem that you've got more urgent problems to address.

She lives in a state where the folks in one of the major cities call one of their major traffic arteries San-Flippy in stead of San Felipe. She's got bigger fish to fry than some little backwater town in East Texas