Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Please focus on people who have real policies and might have a chance to implement them.

So, nobody... well, nobody but the most popular in the two respective parties...  Nobody with respectable policies outside the party lines is going to get elected, and if they do nothing will happen because they are outside party lines.

Unless of course you mean someone who's policy is to do nothing, gets popular vote and plans to veto everything.  Then, I guess they don't have to be a party puppet in the show.

[Aqizzar]

There are a lot of people who really need to grow up and learn to ignore the puppet show. Bachman is a gibbering idiot and everyone, including her staff, knows that. She will not run for president, and if the Republican party wanted to throw the race or something and select her, it would be because they know she will not win.

Well, she is officially running, and there's no doubt she'd qualify to be on the ballot in every state.  She spending a lot of money on staff too, so she doesn't exactly expect them to just stand around looking good.  I wouldn't put too much stock in polling or anything though, up until actual primary votes start.  Nobody else remember that Donald Trump was leading every Republican opinion poll with like 40% favorability, right up the one plank of his fake candidacy became outmoded?  Or as everybody, especially Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich like to remind everyone, John McCain was buried in polls around this time by Rudy Giuliani.

By the way, Michele Bachmann keeps making enemies, and now she's racking up some heavy hitters, like Tom Petty.

[Bauglir]

This is tangential, but now I wonder how many politicians actually respect copyright laws with regards to their campaigns. Particularly politicians who are supposedly supporters of stronger anti-infringement rules; I'm not sure how many of those mentioned in the above-linked article fit under that category, though.

[Nikov]

Stop being Petty, Tom.

[RedKing]

Maybe Bachman-Turner Overdrive would be more sympathetic. And they have so many apropros choices:

"Takin' Care of Business" (really, fitting for most politicians with a pro-corporate record)
"My Wheels Won't Turn" (I don't think the wheels ever really turn in Bachmann's head)
"You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" (and we'll continue to see lots of nothing)

[Nadaka]

Stop being Petty, Tom.

Public performance of a copyrighted work without a license is serious business. In fact, if there were at least 10 recordings of that rally in existence, it is a felony with a potential sentence of 5 years in prison and $250000 in fines.

[Andir]

...it is a felony with a potential sentence of 5 years in prison and $250000 in fines.

If only.  It would be nice to have a public representative have to suffer through the same laws as "Joe Smith."

[Nilik]

irregardless

irregardless

irregardless

Gaaaah!

"Regardless" or "Irrespective". Please pick one, and leave the poor English language out of this!

Ok, continue.

[Andir]

"Regardless" or "Irrespective". Please pick one, and leave the poor English language out of this!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Give it time.  The English language is not static.

[Starver]

"Regardless" or "Irrespective". Please pick one, and leave the poor English language out of this!

(For the record, I saw that, and cringed too.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Give it time.  The English language is not static.

Speaking as one who also cringes when people incorrectly (IMO) use the word "decimate" as anything other than "to remove/lose ten percent"[1][2], I really wish some bits of it were.



[1] Definitely not "remove/lose all but ten percent" or even "annihilate", as it's often used.  On the definition accessible via that Merriam Webster site, the conflict is meanings one and two vs meaning three.

[2] And I'm open to it being "around 10%", given that most ringleaders/commanders in the legions were often executed anyway and then a ballot of usually 1 in 10 was made with the ordinary men.  But some form of loss well within an order of magnitude of the proportion after which the word was named, you know?

[edit: "executed executed"?  Ah, was probably across edit-window line-boundaries.  Corrected.]

[Sidhien]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Give it time.  The English language is not static.

Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Even if you treated it as if it were a word, "ir-" is a negation, so the definition would be "not without regard." Which is the exact opposite of how it's generally used. Which is probably why it's so hated.

>_>
<_<

*runs back into the shadows*

[Andir]

Personally I don't care.  I have a recent love how some people hate the word though and will make dramatic posts over it.  (Recent being within the past 8 hours...)

[Kay12]

I love the word 'inflammable', and its opposite 'ininflammable' (correct, means something that can't catch fire) and 'flammable' (technically incorrect but a lifesaver as it's common and least ambiguous of the three).

[Andir]

I love the word 'inflammable', and its opposite 'ininflammable' (correct, means something that can't catch fire) and 'flammable' (technically incorrect but a lifesaver as it's common and least ambiguous of the three).

Actually 'in' means that it can, not the negative 'ir' but yeah, I never liked inflammable because it's seems redundant.  I will not, however, make a dramatic post about it.

[Kay12]

I love the word 'inflammable', and its opposite 'ininflammable' (correct, means something that can't catch fire) and 'flammable' (technically incorrect but a lifesaver as it's common and least ambiguous of the three).

Actually 'in' means that it can, not the negative 'ir' but yeah, I never liked inflammable because it's seems redundant.  I will not, however, make a dramatic post about it.

Yeah, that's my point. 'i-' prefixes usually indicate negation and 'flammable' sounds like a sensible word. Furthermore, the language has constantly evolved, I think it's about time they made 'flammable' official and created another word for 'ininflammable' so there would be zero chance of confusion.