|
|
|
|
|
|
 Oooops [message #107338] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 09:38   |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Haha I read that quote in Newsweek and laughed out loud.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #107434] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 13:58 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
He should at least pretend he's a smart person.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #107481] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 16:29 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
And talking stupid would somehow not make them stay stupid?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship |
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #107486] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 17:02 |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I think you are scraping the bottom of the exuse barrel, NodBugger (and Crimson).
We all know Bush can't handle those long, confusing, hard-to-pronounce words...or those shorter difficult words. He is a man that always tries to use a low vocabulary, because if he doesn't, he runs the risk of getting confused and making up a word, like "misunderestimated".
This has nothing to do with the size of his vocabulary. He said something that grammatically, no matter which way you stretch it, meant that "the United states never stops thinking of ways to harm Americans." There was no allusion to anything, just idiocy.
If you think that a man who doesn't have a firm grasp on his native language is fit to run this country, than by all means...vote Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oooops [message #107489] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 17:11 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| SEAL |
If you think that a man who doesn't have a firm grasp on his native language is fit to run this country, than by all means...vote Bush.
|
I have disagree there. Someone who doesn't have a firm grasp can be fit to lead, though usually not very well overall. I bring to the table as an example, the former Canadian Prime Minister. A common joke up here is that he knew neither official language. Sure he could speak it, but either due to the partial paralysis in his face, or some other factor, he would easily slip up. He was in power for a number of terms, only recently stepping down due to a "misplacement" of funds. I'm not saying he's the best PM we've had, far from it... but it doesn't mean he wasn't capable of the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
Then why do you defend his phrases so much, then say I'm "scraping the bottom of the excuse barrel" when I do the same? Double standards? Hypocrisy?
