Posted on 01/17/2007 11:56:49 AM PST by JZelle
The rap on George W. Bush is that he can't make a rousing speech like Winston Churchill, and indeed he can't. But who can? Not Hillary, not "the husband of," not John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or even Barack Obama, worthies all. Churchill marshaled the language and sent it off to World War II. He was sui generis, one of a kind, an orator who played rhetoric like Babe Ruth hit home runs and Brooks Robinson played third base. But Churchill, the electrifier of frightened audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, had an advantage that neither George W. nor the pretenders do. He had an audience wired to be electrified.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My cousin Vinnie made good speeches too. Then, there is this gym manager I know, who came in to one class at the gym earlier this week, and made a fiery, there is no other word for it, speech.
The same is happening now. All stops are out with the msm calling the Iraq war lost and they are working hard on Afghanistan. If the msm was truthful and on the American side this war might well be over.
I was niave enough to think that the internet would make a difference this time. It has but not to the extent that I had hoped. I have discovered that many citizens still get their world view from katie couric, the view and the nyt. They are also not true Americans, only interested in what the government will give them
While I agree with much of what you say in #57, it doesn't address the questions in my post.
That may well turn out to be true. As a friend who was in the initial invasion and is now back in Iraq for tour #2
"We can civilize them or destroy them. The second option is always on the table".
As an aside, he has been in the sunni triangle for the past year and says that the present policy is working.
Yeh, my second thought was that it might be related to the Latin gene, as in genesis - the root, the beginning.
So to call Churchill "sui generis" or an "original, unique" person would make perfect sense.
The writer should have just named Churchill "unique" in plain English. It would have conveyed what the man was and would have been sufficient and understandable.
Slipping into altar boy Latin to appear sophisticated is the trick of a common, cheap sycophant.
Churchill stood on his own, as a man of courage and pointed conviction. He doesn't need cheap word tricks to appear larger than he already is.
I thought Fox News might be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately they have gone from fair and balanced to what cnn was 10 yrs ago, left of center. There still is a glimmer there, they are the only ones to cover Oil for Food, but I am afraid there will not be a maistream broadcast or cable news service that is truthful, conservative and American. I am just baffled that there is not a group of real Americans with the financial backing who could accomplish this.
If CBS had a lick of sense they'd rip off the Fox News model, fire Katie, hire Brit and make money hand over fist. But they'll die a slow death before they'll do it.
The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.
Bingo....Condi let a golden opportunity get away. She could've body slammed her AND made the most salient point of all.
"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug."
I see you're a reader of Mark Twain, my favorite writer. H.L. Mencken and Twain are "sui generis."
I disagree. "Bring the evil doers to justice" and "Islam is a religion of peace" is about as wishy washy as you can get.
"We can civilize them or destroy them. The second option is always on the table".
Although destruction is my preferred first option, I support President Bush, and the whole of western civilization's choice to attempt option two first, several times, over as many years as needed, before resorting to the "second option".
This war is going to last several decades. We did not initiate it, but we are the people who will end it.
One way or another...
I have a 2 reichs mark coin from 1939 in my coin collection. On the front is Hindenburg, not uncle addie, on the reverse is the imperial eagle and swastica. But on the the edge of the coin it says something like "Public good goes before self-interest." I've always wondered if maybe the speeches we see today are somewhat edited or whatnot, all I seem to recall are him foaming at the mouth and ranting against this and that, aren't there any of him sitting around calmly discussing everyday, mundande stuff? At university they said he was very influential and mesmerizing but a sort of gutteral speaking voice and all that.
Dude, don't be so helpless! Drag 'sui generis' into the Google toolbar and the third entry is this:
sui generis \soo-eye-JEN-ur-us; soo-ee-\, adjective: Being the only example of its kind; constituting a class of its own; unique.
This man, in fact, was sui generis, a true original. -- Ruth Lord, Henry F. du Pont and Winterthur
They're a special case, a category of their own, sui generis. -- Eric Kraft, Leaving Small's Hotel
In the degree of their alienation from their society and of their impact on it, the Russian intelligentsia of the nineteenth century were a phenomenon almost sui generis. -- Aileen M. Kelly, Toward Another Shore
William Randolph Hearst did not speak often of his father. He preferred to think of himself as sui generis and self-created, which in many ways he was. -- David Nasaw, The Chief
Sui generis is from Latin, literally meaning "of its own kind": sui, "of its own" + generis, genitive form of genus, "kind."
I hope so. If the media were on our side... Remember the Kosovo War? Clinton lied about why we went in, there was no national interest, we bombed civilian targets and aided al-queda. Not a peep from the msm.
SandwichGuy, we're not being helpless; we're solicting responses from the Freeper community.
We already went thru the root explanations of "sui generis" ( see previous posts) and you've added to the knowledge base.
We already know that the use of the in context Latin phrase is extraneous and unnecessary, but, of course, that's my opinion.
It's already been established that sui generis means unique.
The question then is why not use the word "unique" instead of sui generis? Hmmmm?
My determination is that some former Catholic altar boy wanted to puff himself up and confuse the matter with irrelevant Latin. That's okay, though, as we traveled about learning of various meanings and words.
So, dasvedanya, Komrad. :-)
I was teaching social studies in rural MO when the Ayotola Khomeni had his revolution. It was great fun. I even bought a Khomeni dartboard and we threw darts at the ayotola. But you had to spell Khomeni corrrectly to get a turn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.