It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Strategery, misunderestimated, refudiate: former President George W. Bush and Sarah Palin have been chastised by journalists and academes for their inventive language and occasional grammatical gaffes for years. Now it is President Obama’s turn. Here comes “Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English,” a new book that parses Mr. Obama’s command of the language, or lack thereof.
“The first wordsmith is, in fact, an occasional stem-winder who is grammatically challenged,” says author and Harvard-educated historian William Proctor, who pored over 3,000 pages of the president’s official speeches and remarks. He’s convinced that Americans — particularly students — can learn a little something from Mr. Obama.
“His speeches reveal that at this point, he is simply not in the same rhetorical-grammatical league as a Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Proctor says.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by captaintyinknots
so i tale it palins " mistakes " dont matter either ?
Originally posted by centurion1211
“His speeches reveal that at this point, he is simply not in the same rhetorical-grammatical league as a Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Proctor says.
Well, that may knock obama down several pegs off the "smartest American president" pedestal some had tried to place him on shortly after his election.
“Even as we explore Mr. Obama’s errors, we should not lapse into smug, finger-pointing complacency. His mistakes should serve as a reminder to the rest of us that we, too, may need to clean up our technical language skills.”
Originally posted by neo96
yeah well we have sit here and listened to 12 years of left bashing the rights intelligence
its only fair cant hang in the game dont start it.
Obama was prompted to write by an earlier letter from a Mr. Jim Chen that criticized Harvard Law Review's affirmative action policies. Specifically, Chen had argued that affirmative action stigmatized its presumed beneficiaries.
The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.
"Since the merits of the Law Review's selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues," wrote Obama, "I'd like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works."
If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that "merits ... have." Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone. He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.
Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
So, in other words, you think that its was unfair when 'liberals' did it, therefore it makes it okay when you do it?
Originally posted by xuenchen
here's a little bit about Obama's writing "skills" too.
a lot to be desired
Obama was prompted to write by an earlier letter from a Mr. Jim Chen that criticized Harvard Law Review's affirmative action policies. Specifically, Chen had argued that affirmative action stigmatized its presumed beneficiaries.
The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.
August 29, 2011 Early Obama Letter Confirms Inability to Write
"Since the merits of the Law Review's selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues," wrote Obama, "I'd like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works."
If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that "merits ... have." Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone. He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.
grammer checker anyone ?
read the entire article .... it's good !
Originally posted by Indigo5
The media rarely took Sarah Palin or President Bush to task for an " inability to make subject and predicate agree" they were taken to task on their knowledge of history or frankly comical statements
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Indigo5
The media rarely took Sarah Palin or President Bush to task for an " inability to make subject and predicate agree" they were taken to task on their knowledge of history or frankly comical statements
The MSM was all over them for any and every slip - because the MSM wanted obama elected and showing his predecessor and the current VP candidate in a bad light was an easy way to help that happen.
Oh, to understand the media bias towards obama, doesn't GE own MSNBC? The same GE whose CEO is also obama's "jobs czar". The same "jobs czar" that is sending thousands of GE jobs to china?
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Indigo5
And so now the proof that obama does the same thing.
But where is the MSM and certain ATS members to also make fun of obama for it?
Originally posted by Indigo5
The idea that you think Bushisms and Sarah Palins ignorance of basic history is on the same scale as a grammatically misconstructed sentence...well it seems desperate and painfully so.
Unaided, Obama tends to the awkward, passive, and verbose. The phrase "our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer" would more profitably read, "we should focus on the employer." "Concern" is simply the wrong word.
Scarier than Obama's style, however, is his thinking. A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would "even insinuate" that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Either way, this thread is somehow both strange and boring and frankly a little sad. I'll leave you to it.edit on 4-10-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)edit on 4-10-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)