2012 Poll

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.

That is ridiculous. If I beat up an old lady and stole her purse, would it be incorrect for you to say, "Rupert beats up old ladies and steal their purses."?

I guess technically it shouldn't be plural if I only beat up one old lady and stole her purse. However, I would still consider the statment correct and I don't think too many would argue the semantics. I think people would get the point.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is ridiculous. If I beat up an old lady and stole her purse, would it be incorrect for you to say, "Rupert beats up old ladies and steal their purses."?

I guess technically it shouldn't be plural if I only beat up one old lady and stole her purse. However, I would still consider the statment correct and I don't think too many would argue the semantics. I think people would get the point.

I dunno -- do you make a habit of it, or did you do it once?

That's the difference between singular and plural nouns and verbs. The former means it happened once, the latter means it happened over and over.

So you tell me, did you beat up an old lady and steal her purse, or do you beat up old ladies and steal their purses?

Has Holder sued a state for its law or has Holder sued states for their laws?

You may think it's a minor thing and that "people would get the point," but the only point I get so far is that you're acting hysterical and feel the need to make something sound worse than it is to try to score a point. I get it. It's what you guys do, which is why I saw it coming earlier this afternoon and was shock, unsurprisingly right.

Ponderous.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I dunno -- do you make a habit of it, or did you do it once?

That's the difference between singular and plural nouns and verbs. The former means it happened once, the latter means it happened over and over.

So you tell me, did you beat up an old lady and steal her purse, or do you beat up old ladies and steal their purses?

Has Holder sued a state for its law or has Holder sued states for their laws?

You may think it's a minor thing and that "people would get the point," but the only point I get so far is that you're acting hysterical and feel the need to make something sound worse than it is to try to score a point. I get it. It's what you guys do, which is why I saw it coming earlier this afternoon and was shock, unsurprisingly right.

Holder couldn't do it more than once. Only one state has passed such a law so far. I think it is correct to use the plural form if something is policy. For example, let's say a police department has a policy of arresting prositiutes but not the customers. Now let's say they implement a new policy where they are arresting the "Johns" too. Let's say that they just implemented this policy and have arrested one "John" so far. Would it be incorrect to say that this police department arrests "people" for soliciting prostitutes? Of course that would be a correct statement. Just because they've only arrested one person so far, that doesn't make it incorrect to use "people" plural. Their policy is to arrest "people" for soliciting prostitutes. It is a correct statement to say they arrest "people" for soliciting prosititutes just like it is a correct statement to say Holder sues "states" that try to enforce immigration laws. It's irrelevant that it has only happened once. The policy is in place.

By the way, I have never been convicted of beating up an old lady and stealing her purse. (I have a good lawyer). That was a joke.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

and as an add on to the above how much worse could we have been today if Palin had become president in Jan '09 - fact probably not any worse than this mess either

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

and as an add on to the above how much worse could we have been today if Palin had become president in Jan '09 - fact probably not any worse than this mess either

seeing how mccain is still alive and kicking, i'm not sure how palin would be prez in '09.

had mccain chosen a decent running mate, instead of that dipshit, he'd have most likely won. wonder if things would be any different? i'm guessing no.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seeing how mccain is still alive and kicking, i'm not sure how palin would be prez in '09.

had mccain chosen a decent running mate, instead of that dipshit, he'd have most likely won. wonder if things would be any different? i'm guessing no.

i was a hypothetical danzig , i know mccain was the nominee for president

there is talk about palin running in '12

if she had been elected president and took over in jan '09 , we wouldn't be any worse off today than what we are and no one can prove that statement wrong

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i was a hypothetical danzig , i know mccain was the nominee for president

there is talk about palin running in '12

if she had been elected president and took over in jan '09 , we wouldn't be any worse off today than what we are and no one can prove that statement wrong

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

firing an employee over a 30 second blog without looking at all the facts because she was going to be on glen beck , know that makes the white house a comedy show that even pailn's butchering of the english language can't even top

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

firing an employee over a 30 second blog without looking at all the facts because she was going to be on glen beck , know that makes the white house a comedy show that even pailn's butchering of the english language can't even top

is that the usda employee you're talking about?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

is that the usda employee you're talking about?

yes the lady from Georgia , what a pr disaster

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

An excellent point.
This is one of the areas where presidents can make a big difference. There are plenty of others too. People would be better served focusing on those areas than attributing every change in the nation's (or world's) economy to the person in the Oval Office. The bottom line with Obama will probably be:
1) if the economy is doing well or surging mightily in the summer and fall of '12....he'll win.
2) if it isn't....he'll lose.

That's stupid.

Things the president can control (Supreme Court nominees, some aspects of foreign policy, pushes for legislation on social issues, etc.) often take a back seat to things the president can't control in the minds of voters. The country re-elected the Bush administration after a truly miserable first four years on a number of fronts....many of which (Iraq) were the direct result of actions taken by the administration. People didn't care. Then the country turned against him in the second term largely because the economy fell apart "on his watch." Sure his administration only deserves about 1% of the blame for the economic meltdown, but most voters are too stupid to figure that out.....which is probably the answer to your other question about why there aren't good candidates. There aren't many good voters.

[Danzig]

people lament the economy (and i agree, the pres doesn't have much affect over all) but i can't help but wonder how much our problems come from those two stupid, ill advised wars? spending went thru the roof, as did the deficit. the deficit has a correlary effect on the economy. our foreign policy has been a mess for years, decades even. afganistan was our number one recipient of foreign aid for years. we supported iraq vs iran...hindsight of course is 20-20. we should never had invaded either country, we shouldn't be there now, all these years and billions and lives later. clinton perhaps should have done more, bush should have waited for calm before deciding what to do after 9-11, instead of the visceral off with their heads response. what is past is prologue.... and this story sucks.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't help but wonder how much our problems come from those two stupid, ill advised wars? spending went thru the roof, as did the deficit. the deficit has a correlary effect on the economy. our foreign policy has been a mess for years, decades even. afganistan was our number one recipient of foreign aid for years. we supported iraq vs iran...hindsight of course is 20-20. we should never had invaded either country, we shouldn't be there now, all these years and billions and lives later.

Yep, all of this is 100% true. And the point you make about the government's debt having an effect on the economy is quite correct. I just think some people (not you) seem to think that Bush "spending a lot of money," and Obama "spending a lot of money" is what caused the economy to tank. That is nonsense.
Was the war in Iraq a poor decision fiscally for the United States? Yes. I hate that war as much as anyone and opposed it from the outset....but it didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, unemployment to skyrocket etc. Either did the stimulus, as I know you know.