Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: skip_intro; sinkspur
It won't actually say that on the card, and I don't think Bush has "contempt" for the American worker. But Bush really needs to stop using that phrase "jobs Americans won't do." That terminology implies that some Americans may be too soft or too lazy to do certain jobs. Instead, his speech writers need to use this terminology: "jobs that Americans don't want to do." There's a subtle but importance difference in those phrases. The revised terminology doesn't imply that Americans are soft or lazy. It just says they don't want to do the job, for whatever reason and the reason doesn't matter.

I think the truth is in between Bush's position and Schlaffly's position: there aren't enough Americans who want to do some jobs to keep certain industries running at the current size of these industries.

What do you think of this change in terminology, Sinkspur?

467 posted on 05/09/2006 9:44:51 PM PDT by defenderSD (¤¤ Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: defenderSD

Fine. "jobs Americans don't want to do" says lazy or arrogant, just as "jobs Americans won't do" does.


468 posted on 05/09/2006 9:51:15 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson