G'day Jim,
> I've lost your answer to the below, but if I remember my original
> point, the idea of Caligula naming himself "Germanicus" isn't that different
> from Reagan being dubbed "Granadicus," Bush "Panamacus," or Clinton
> "Sudanicus." (They're a bunch of cusses, too.)
If memory serves,
"Granadicus," Bush "Panamacus," or Clinton
"Sudanicus." (They're a bunch of cusses, too.)
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James
To: 'Justin Schwartz '
Sent: 12/23/01 7:29 PM
Subject: RE: [PEN-L:20888] Re: RE: No recognition for Enduring Fr
Carrol says:
>
>I keep remembering Eisenhower's years, when everyone had a ball mocking
>his clumsy rhetoric and suggesting he wasn't too bright. It was a hoax,
>a rather deliberate one. It is particularly unwise to try to estimate
>intelligence on the basis of someone's command of language: that
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> lots of people are sympathetic to the
> Shrub precisely because he's unininterested, not too bright, and not very
> well-informed--sort of like them. So making fun of him for being a moron, as
> opposed to despising his politics, is probably a political mistake.
>
I
following the
>lead of ancient Roman emperors, US Presidents to add titles to their names
>to indicate their victorie: Ronald Grenadacus Reagan, George Panamacus
>Bush,
>Bill Sudanicus Clinton, Dubya Afghanistanicus Bush... One problem is that
>last on the list wouldn't be able to spell his ow
>American representatives overwhelmed those of every other country at the
inauguration ceremony. There was General Tommy Franks - who might have
expected a victor ludorum after vanquishing the Taliban -<
this reminds me of a proposal that I think still is relevant: following the
lead of ancient R
