English english?

This formerly read-only archive of threads dates back to 1996, but as of March 2007 is open to new postings. For technical reasons, the early dates shown do not accurately reflect the actual date of posting.

Feel free to add new postings to any of the existing threads in the archived forums, but please create any new language-related threads in one of the Language Discussion Forums.

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:34 am

Who is this idiot?
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:49 am

I resent being called an idiot.Everyone knows I'm at least an imbecile.
Erik Kowal
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:03 am

The 'professional wastrels' as you call them, are part of our long, long history. They are a tradition as much as they are figureheads.

In a few milennia, when America has something resembling a history of their own, then and only then will I welcome a discussion on the merits (or lack of) of the royal family.

Sam
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:17 am

Of course, with 'history of their own', I do not mean the native Americans, they have been there a mite longer than 'modern Americans' who, incidently emigrated to the USA mainly from great britain and parts of Europe. (Australia actually takes it one step further, apart from the aboriginies they have decended almost entirely from british convicts.)

My theory is that you are just jealous as there has never been any American royalty, therefore you are missing out on one of the most romantic historical backgrounds. (You know what I mean, castles, knights and kings in all their glory.)

Just my humble opinion of course, you no doubt have a completely different reason for being so uptight about royalty.

Sam
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:32 am

I enjoy language nuances especially in the varieties of English.

To be knocked up in the morning, is quite a different experience in England than it is in the U.S.A.

If you smoke a fag in England, then the worst thing that may happen to you is a nasty cough or lung cancer. If you smoke a fag in the U.S.A., then you will be arrested and put in jail for committing a hate crime.

In England if you get "pissed", you are in a jolly mood from having one too many alcoholic beverages. If you are "pissed" in America then you are not in a jolly mood.

English isn't the only language that has these issues. Spanish is another one.

A mariposa in Spain is a butterfly.
A mariposa in Mexico is a homosexual.

In Spain or in Mexico a pato is a duck.
In Puerto Rico a pato is a homosexual.

In Spain or Mexico plata is silver, as in the base metal or when referring to eating utensils.

In Puerto Rico plata is money.

In Spain, Mexico, or Puerto Rico a bolsa is a bag such as a shopping bag or a lady's handbag or purse, but in Ecuador it refers to a man's testicles.

In Spain, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, or Colombia huevos are eggs, but in Mexico the word is more commonly used for testicles.

American History is a history to be proud of with many notable accomplishments, as does English history. Sure it wasn't perfect, but can anyone honestly name any country that is blameless?

My experience has been that the average American doesn't give royalty much thought. I don't think jealousy is the right word. Many are captivated by the romance surrounding it. I remember every American being glued to their televisions when Diana married Charles, and I remember almost every American weeping at the loss of that same Princess. You would be hard pressed to find many Americans that can read that don't enjoy the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

I like George Bush better than Bill Clinton, and George Bush 41, but not as much as Ronald Reagan. His public speaking skills do need polish, but at least you know where he stands on most issues, and you get the feeling that he is tracking down terrorists and trying to run the country rather than chasing the interns around the White House. But I digress as that is a conversation on politics, and discussing politics is a fool's game.

Cheers

Karl
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:46 am

Karl, you have been brainwashed.Reagan was a moron with a nice smile. The Bushes owe everything to Skull & Bones, Clinton was the best republican president of the 20th century , and his wife is even slicker than Slick.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:01 pm

It is easy to name call, but what is your argument? Where are your facts to support it?

Clinton was a horrible President who weakened America as much as he could. He cut our military. He gave nuclear secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. He lied under oath. He was the only elected President that was ever impeached. He pardoned tax evader Marc Rich for a campaign contribution. He raised taxes to their highest rate ever in American history. He helped advance the North Korean nuclear program. He let U.S. soldiers be dragged through the streets of Mogadishu with no response. The USS Cole bombed with no response. An U.S. Embassy blown up in Africa and there is no response. Sudan offered him Osama Bin Laden and he turned them down. Sadaam Hussein kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq, and Bill Clinton did nothing. You called Reagan a moron with no facts to back it up, but Bill Clinton didn't even know what the definition of the word "is" is. I define that as being a moron.

But hey if that is how you define greatness then to each his own.

Then there is Hillary, who "loses" documents that are part of an FBI investigation on her law firm, and then 2 years later they show up in plain view, in her office of the White House, on top of her desk, with her fingerprints all over them. She wants to socialize medicine. She feels that taxes are too low and can never be raised high enough. You call Reagan a moron, but this woman did not even believe that her husband had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I would call that a moron.

So again if that is how you define greatness then there you have it.

Reagan lowered taxes, which means that working Americans could keep more of the money that they worked for. Reagan strengthened the military and took an aggressive approach in the arms race, which lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War. He told Michael Gorbachev to tear down that wall and the Berlin wall came down. The Libyans tried terrorism so Reagan had the Libyan military destroyed, and we have not heard from them since except to try and promote peace in the Middle East.

As far as the Bushes go, Bush 41 pushed a ruthless dictator out of Kuwait and back into his own borders. He made a mistake by not pushing all the way to Baghdad and deposing completely of the dictator back then, but he wanted to follow the United Nations’ resolution. His other mistake was raising taxes rather than eliminating government waste. How do the Skull and Bones play into this?

Bush 43 is still developing, but his tax cuts are allowing working Americans to keep more of the money they work for and as a result the economy is turning around, but taxes are still way too high. He deposed of the ruthless dictator in 3 weeks. That is less time than it took Janet Reno to have the ATF kill all those kids in Waco, TX. There has been not one terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. Now how do the Skull and Bones tie into all this?

The facts speak for themselves.

Karl

Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:15 pm

YOUR LAST NAME MUST BE ROVE. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A BRAIN WASHED MORON TO BELIEVE THE LIES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:29 pm

Rove has stooges to give out that sort of garbage, and will see to it that the shrub raises enough money to swamp tv with disingenuos mottoes that Joe Sixpack will eat up.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:44 pm

Yes again with the name calling. Lefties can never offer an intelligent rebuttal, just call someone stupid.

I see you also display the classic liberal disdain for someone you feel beneath your station.

Joe Sixpack indeed, I don't even drink. I don't watch all that much television either aside from PBS, Discovery Channel, and the news. I spend most of my spare time reading.

There is not one lie to be found in Karl's statement above. He backed his arguments up with facts, and not once was he so rude or low-brow as to call names.

I think rather than spouting the party line of the left, it may benefit you to do some fact checking, and rather than being Howard Dean's echo box, actually provide an independent thought of your own.

Hillary






Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:58 pm

REAGAN LOWERED TAXES ONLY FOR THE RICH AND CREATED THE BIGGEST DEFICIT TO THAT TIME . HIS TRICKLE DOWN THEORY WOULD BE
BETTER NAMED THE GOLDEN SHOWER FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS THEORY.STAR WARS IS THE CREATION OF A HALF WIT.RUSSIA FELL BECAUSE OF INTERNAL BEAUROCRATIC INCOMPETENCE, BUT CHINA HAS
LEARNED FROM RUSSIA'S FAILURE.THAT AND NAFTA WILL DESTROY OUR MIDDLE CLASS WHILE IDIOTS LIKE YOU WAVE THE FLAG.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:13 pm

Ahmed, a report from Whitehorse says you have given up camels for canines, you horny devil.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:27 pm

In regard to mr. Rove's slimy assertions: that he gave nuclear secrets to the chinese, bullshit. That he raised taxes to the highest point in US history, more lies. The sex thing is more right wing crap, He could screw a flock of sheep in the rose garden for all it matters except to the religious freaks. His real crime was NAFTA, which the reactionaries are silent about because it allows the biggies to export the jobs of the middle class. Every irrelevant other right wing distraction Mr. Rove cites is also nonsense.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:41 pm

If you define "rich" as anyone who made more than $30K a year then Reagan did lower taxes for the "rich". He would have lowered taxes for the "poor", but how do you lower tax on people who pay none whatsoever to begin with? Plus income does not equal wealth. Patrick Kennedy has not worked a day in his life by his own admission, therefore he has not earned a penny, but he is certainly not poor.

I could also care less about the consensual sexual habits of Mr. Clinton, however I do have a big problem when Presidents or anyone else regardless of party affiliation, lie under oath. Lying under oath is a crime.

It seems we have some religious fanatics in here who preach the gospel of the Democratic Party with no room for independent, honest, critical thought.

Of course Clinton didn't give nuclear secrets to the Chinese, he sold them for campaign contributions. Every source I've checked shows that his assertion of the taxes are indeed correct.

Why the great disdain for the middle class? They work and contribute to society and keep the economy going. Why the hatred for high wage earners? They are working for the money they earn. Why do you view it as acceptable for the government to take money from those who earn it, and show no accountability to the taxpayer?

Plus any astute observer would realize that the statements by Karl, I don't think he ever stated to be Karl Rove, would realize that those are Libertarian views rather than Republican views. At least they seem to be. I know that mine are Libertarian.
Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

English english?

Post by Archived Reply » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:56 pm

Why the invective on people who have some respect for the great efforts put forth by our forefathers to have that flag wave? Which is greater your hatred for the U.S.A., the flag that represents that country, Mr. Bush its current president, or just anyone with a different point of view than yours?

What I think we should be seeking is not blind demagoguery, but rather a thoughtful critique of the wastefullness of government spending and deal in facts. The United States government flagrantly "loses" money for government programs that quite frankly are failing. Welfare reform was one of the best examples of what thinking out of the box of tax and spend will do, congrats to Mr. Clinton on that iconoclastic effort. Now if we can just get someone from any party to take on Medicare Reform.

Moron and idiot. The man was stating a point of view. Are you so closed minded as not to listen to an alternate point of view? Actually, I see someone who expresses their opinion, not that I share the same ones, but they express their opinion articulately and with enough internet courtesy and tact not to SHOUT all of his ideas.

Can we aim for a more sophisticated dialogue that is more constructive and not so vitriolic? I think both sides should concede there are demagogues on both sides, and only when we move to a more civilized debate with all of the apoplectic emotion removed and strict facts analyzed will this country move forward more productively. In my observations I've never seen either political party get things correct 100% of the time.

My closing thought will be that I was under the impression the purpose of this clubhouse was to discuss idiosyncrasies and nuance of the English language rather than polemic political debate. Am I incorrect?


Reply from ( - )
Post actions:
Signature: Reply imported and archived

Post Reply