First of all, with just a modicum of effort an intellectual such as yourself could easily contact the current Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) leadership that includes Paul G. Kirk, Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., co-chairmen of the non-partisan, non-profit group.

You obviously believe that you are a tad above the rather plebeian blather of most posters but perhaps the gelid like stare that you seem to direct is the result of your possibly chthonic existence. Or not.

Your search for humor may be no further away than your next opinion...if you have one...along with the required cojones to share your possible solipsism. And a mirror.

But please keep in mind what Bernard Berenson once said: "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were in the past."

Good luck.

Just for you and because I care, I'll mail off a letter concerning their lack of readily available contact info. Oh yes, and the (possible) misprint in the transcript.

How's that for humor!

I personally don't see myself as sitting atop some perch looking down on everyone else. I don't have much in-depth knowledge of many of the subjects that are discussed here, but I pick up whatever I can. There are a lot of very smart people here willing to share their knowledge and I've learned alot from these boards. Not just about people as I mentioned earlier, but of the subjects as well. Maybe I am ignorant now, but I've never been very good at being consistent.

Have it your way. You can say it incorrectly all you want...it cannot possibly lower anyone's opinion of your intellect or education....you are consistent.

You certainly are consistent. It appears tha you would much rather argue semantics than substance. In April of 2000 when Bush made that statement he was in fact "Gov. Bush" and was so addressed during the debates. Yet you try to make some sort of point of contention about it. Incredible.

As GOV. Bush said in Austin, Texas on Nov. 22, 2000 "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

And so you also can interpret what he says in any way your little heart might desire. ;)

Well, they might respond that it's not all that difficult to locate. Even a dummy like me found it pretty easy.;)

As for how you "personally" see yourself...it might not jive real close to your previous statement "...no matter how off or convoluted they may be, on many subject matters. It gives me insight into how other people perceive the world around them. That intrigues me, gives me new perspectives to explore, and generally entertains me." since that indicates a bit of an attitude. Don't you agree?

Your memory is as bad as your usage. You are the one that corrected me.

My usage was absolutely correct...yet you took it upon yourself to correct me and instruct me to write it incorrectly. Once a person is President, he is always referred to that way.

If you wish to write it incorrectly...that is up to you. Don't expect me to do so...or waste my time attempting to have me lower myself to your level.

It has nothing to do with semantics. That is something else entirely.

Okay, let's do a test:

In April of 2000 there was a debate in NC. At that time, was one of the people in that debate the Gov. of Texas?

The rule is different in this case because of the qualifying words.

If you were to say the President received his degree from Yale...it would not mean he was the President at the time.

Again, you offer mendacity and semantic games. You make my point when you say "qualifying" but you then immediately present a strawman argument based on a different set of circumstances.

When speaking of the exact time that the statement was made and in the context of describing who said what at that time...he was most certainly..."Gov. Bush" at that time.

Yes, if speaking in the second person ABOUT something that the current president said prior to becoming president, his current title could be used. I think!

You should look up the words "mendacity" and "semantic".

I did not make your point...nor did you.

My example is appropriate. There is no strawman...just an honest attempt to help you understand a very simple concept.

You are still wrong. My usage was correct. When you refer to the President...you refer to him as the President...even if speaking about things he did or said prior to being elected. The exception is when you use other qualifying words...such as you did in your example...which I did not.

If so...why did you correct my post that did exactly that?

Well, if memory serves me right I think that I simply mentioned that Bush was Gov. Bush when he made the statement...which he was. You made the issue out of it.

But this has gone on far too long. Let's just agree that the current President Bush...back when he was Gov. Bush in April of 2000 made the "nation building" statement and like nearly everyone who heard the debate or looks at the transcript I also do not believe he meant, intended, or was talking about only Haiti.

Amen.

Your memory fails you in this case.

The statement you quoted to start this thread was specifically about Haiti and perhaps Columbia. The President mentioned it in the sentence just prior to your quote and Vice President Gore immediately responded with a remark about Haiti. Apparently both of them knew what was being discussed. Other portions of the debate were indeed more general...referring to our misadventures in nation-building in Somalia, the Balkans, etc. The President certainly was not referring to Iraq.

Many people understood that the President was clearly referring to Haiti in that specific quote. Here is one of many examples:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b45300.html