Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. …FOUR of the YouTube questioners last night were plants.

    <

    p>The mom with the lead paint on the toys?  A union organizer working for Edwards.  The young girl about abortion?  An Edwards campaign worker.  The Log Cabin questioner?  A declared Obama supporter.  And of course, the Clinton’s personal General.

    <

    p>It wouldn’t be so bad if Cooper hadn’t bragged about how there were almost TWICE as many submissions from the public for this debate!  It’s really true – the GOP is shut out of mainstream media, even to ask questions of GOP candidates.

      • …had they been submitted in writing, or delivered in an even-handed manner.

        <

        p>However, couched in gradeskool skit format, by less than clever utube fools, and probably selected more for their snark value than for their relevancy – the manner in which the “questions” were delivered cannot be separated from the questions themselves.

        <

        p>As I’ve stated elsewhere, utube is basically a place where idiots go to waste their time. It’s unfortunate that CNN chooses to use it to diminish the value of a candidates debate.  

      • Who knew at the time that they were supportive of other candidates in another party?

        <

        p>If CNN picked them knowing they were opponents, that’s one thing (still doesn’t say their questions were not legitimate, ESPECIALLY as these folks want to become president of ALL of us), but if CNN only found out after the fact, it’s not on them for having picked them. (Actually, it could say something positive about the opposition’s supporters being intelligent enough to get their answers picked.)

    • You have a cite for the fact that they were plants?  Just curious… they were definitely VERY loaded questions but you know what, good, if you can’t defend your position against an awkward question then you either need to rethink your position or stop pandering.

      <

      p>One thing that bugged me was the clown after the debate, the fat white guy who said Romney did a good job, brushed over Huckabee and otherwise just didn’t seem to get it, anyways after the debate he’s like “I’m getting emails saying the General is on Hillary’s campaign..  I don’t know if that’s true or not”  but he’ll just say it on national TV anyways?  Whatever.  Kudos to CNN for bringing forward tough questions and that includes when they stuck democrats over the immigration driver licenses one as well.  

    • The lack of integrity or lack of intelligence regarding the “planted” questions really, really overshadowed the questions, legitimate or not.  I woke up this morning all ready to rip a hole in the Republicans for the KnowThyNeighbor blog regarding the question posed and followup of the gay Brigadeer General.

      <

      p>I was so prepped to attack especially McCain for his lack of humanity and the audience for booing the General–the moment was uncomfortable in the least yet very very telling of a party and its blind followers for not understanding what it is to be human and American.  However, when I heard that the General was a member of Hillary’s Steering Committee for LGBT we might as well have washed this whole moment down the proverbial “drain.”  I cannot believe for one moment that the General did this all on his own without any help from anyone.  I suspected the HRC or the Log Cabins and I was ready to say “genious!”  Now all I have to say is, “stupid, stupid, stupid!”

      <

      p>It is interesting that Massachusetts Lesbian Media Consultant Mary Breslauer is also on the LGBT Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton…this sort of thing smells of that sort of hack media work not unknown to Massachusetts.

      <

      p>The Brigadeer General’s chance to be a very strong and important voice was used by someone and silenced by stupidity–I demand to know who really is responsible!  

      • …it should be obvious.  If you want a question to be asked, you get it planted.  I sincerely don’t know HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS TO MAKE THE POINT.  If you want to be a milquetoast and are not sure how to get the question asked YOU DO NOT GET IT PLANTED.

        <

        p>If you are trying to suggest that the question was illegitimate, say so.

        • you need to be intelligent enough to understand what the aftermath might be and if you are causing the issue to be overshadowed by media and pundit mello-drama…

          <

          p>That should have been obvious

          • …the issue is the question, and the answer.  Not how the question was posed and who posed the question.  If the campaigns would address those issues, we’d all be better off.

            <

            p>The issue should be the question (was it relevant to a point of issue in the campaign?) and the answer (was it responsive to the question?).  If and when the political campaigns acknowledge that those are the issues, the better off that they will be.  Political campaigns need to get more aggressive against these media mediators who try to mediate the campaigns.  

            <

            p>Otherwise, more and more of us will tune out from their joint press conferences that are jokingly referred to as “debates.”

            • From an LGBT perspective (as that is what I draw on), our leadership needs to ask those kind of questions to ALL of the candidates as well as does our community.  The press aftermath with the Brigadeer General claiming Hillary was not behind the question yet he said that she does so much for the gay community was a major problem for me.

              <

              p>We aren’t talking about some idealistic and refreshingly vocal high school student standing up in an auditorium and posing an uncomfortable question to a speaker, we are talking about a great opportunity that could have been a great voice for LGBT rights if on this national stage it had been better thought out.

    • …you ever been a plant?  Shown up to some public forum to ask a question on behalf of someone who could not ask it themselves?  I dare say I don’t know anyone who has been a lifetime active participant in politics who has not done such a favor at one time or another.  I find it hard to believe that you haven’t ever been involved in such a scenario.

      • However, I, pre and during KnowThyNeighbor’s high period “planted” many a story in major media outlets…

        <

        p>But we weren’t “caught” at doing it!  When I mean “caught” what I am saying is that a smart person removes him/herself or their organization from the immmediate area of question.  

        <

        p>The YouTube debate reminded me of that planted story with the Boston Globe and Deval Patrick failing the LGBT with United Airlines.http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/08/18/gay_rights_advocates_question_patrick/

        <

        p>This alleged plant was pretty obivious to me and anyone who knew the “players” involved.  It prompted an emergency meeting among gay activists to quelch the fire.  The alleged person involved was quoted in the article.  She should have removed herself from the immediate area of this story.  

    1.  Source?

    <

    p>2.  Are “plants” in national debates unreasonable?  With what questions asked do you have a problem, and why?  You show concern with who asked the question, but these alleged potted plants are presumably all American citizens with the right to vote.  If you’ve got a beef with actual questions asked, air it out amigo: we’re all ears.  If your only beef is with the person who asked the question, then with all due respect, shut it.  Good questions should be asked regardless of who owns the mouth from which they come.

    • …from a variety of sources – so you can check the veracity there.

      <

      p>Out of twenty-odd questions asked, FOUR of them came from Democratic campaign workers?  If that had happened on the Democratic YouTube debate, there would be Green Progressive blood in the streets!

      <

      p>What it calls into question in CNN’s editing choices – to choose those 20 out of 5,000 (per Anderson Cooper).  the Bible guy was irrelevant – why weren’t there 9/1 conspiracy theorists asking questions on the Dem debate?

      <

      p>I’m going to echo Mike Huckabee from two debates ago – not ONE question of education or enviornment, he kvetched to Joe Scarborough.  And he was right.  I’ve said a couple of times, I’d like the Dem and GOP question sheets switched – because we’re getting a very narrow view of the candidates on both sides.  

      <

      p>Stomv – did we need so many questions on the SAME subjects, to the exclusion of others?  I don’t have a problem with ONE abortion question, but I wish they had used the Kirk Douglas question about stem cells, for example.  It isn’t that the questions weren’t valid – it’s that they didn’t need to be asked over and over to the exclusion of other topics.

      <

      p>Mitt was right – the Snowman was a set-up.  Does he get points for spotting it?  Oh, and WHEN will the Democrats be appearing on Fox?  If they’re afraid of Bill O’Reilly, how do they take on bin Laden?

      • Out of twenty-odd questions asked, FOUR of them came from Democratic campaign workers?  If that had happened on the Democratic YouTube debate, there would be Green Progressive blood in the streets! (emphasis added)

        <

        p>you might be worthy of responding to.  You don’t have any idea whether what you posted has anything to do with reality, do you?

      • "Mitt was right – the Snowman was a set-up. Does he get points for spotting it? Oh, and WHEN will the Democrats be appearing on Fox? If they're afraid of Bill O'Reilly, how do they take on bin Laden?"

        Gee what year was it when 9/11 happened. I'm sure glad that the President got a hold of him quickly…wait, we still don't have Bin Laden…I guess the Repugs just aren't very good on homeland security.

         

      • You failed to address either of my questions.

        <

        p>1.  Drudge is not a source [in almost all cases].  He links to others, serving as a news aggregator.  It’d be a bit like citing google news, except that google isn’t a jackass.

        <

        p>2.  You didn’t even come close to addressing my question.  With which of the alleged four plant questions do you have beef?  Why?

        <

        p>

        <

        p>I do agree with you that the question scopes are too narrow for both sides, but that’s [partly] a function of what the parties have been doing in Congress and the WH.  If the GOP doesn’t seem interested in environmental protections [and based on recent action, they don’t], why should it come up in debate?  Additionally, the Dems went ahead and sought out broader forums — they went to a GBLT debate, a black debate, etc.  The GOP candidates have, by and large, had “scheduling conflicts”.  It doesn’t seem that the GOP or the GOP candidates have made expanding the scope of relevant issues particularly important to them.

        <

        p>P.S. I expect that Democrats will appear on Fox when it lives up to it’s billing as Fox News.  Until then, I expect they’ll continue to ignore that tripe.

        • I had suggested Drudge BECAUSE it is an aggregator, but here are individual links –

          <

          p>From Politico, which broke the story –

          <

          p>http://www.politico.com/news/s…

          <

          p>Video from MSNBC –

          <

          p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

          <

          p>The ORIGINAL abortion question (CNN had the girl change her shirt) –

          <

          p>http://youtube.com/user/papers…

          <

          p>The Log Cabin video – wherre he touts Obama in his profile –

          <

          p>http://youtube.com/watch?v=MZo…

          <

          p>From Democratic Underground, the background on the Toy Mommy –
          http://www.democraticundergrou…

          <

          p>And, of course, Anderson Cooper’s apology –

          <

          p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

          <

          p>Stomv – do you still think I’m just making this up?

          • …let’s go with the premise that the General was a plant, had direct communication with Hillary herself, and was paid to be there. How does that effect the legitimacy of his question and how does that excuse the utterly disgraceful answers by the candidates?

            <

            p>You can spend all the time you want assailing the ethics and character of the General, but you have failed to address the content of the questions and answers.  I believe that is what’s called argumentum ad hominem.  So I’ll stipulate that Anderson, Hillary, and the General are unscrupulous manipulative media masterminds and beyond defense. But that does not affect the Q&A’s content.  I think you are spending time trying to discredit the general because you know the question was legit and the answers are indefensible.

          • just wanted to see more details for my own education.

            <

            p>But you still haven’t answered my second question…

            • …most specifically with the General.  Most of the candidates answered – and I appreciated that 17 year old quote they found for romney, would that Mr. Cooper could do that kind of research on his questioners! – and at the end of the answeres, Cooper turned to the general and asked – Did any of them answer to your satisfaction?  The question there should have been – COULD any have answered to your satisfaction, as you are a political operative on a Democratic campaign!  The question per se was a good one – it was the surrounding theatre and skullduggery that made it a mockery.  At that, CNN tries to slide away saying, we didn’t know he was in a CAMPAIGN, we just thought he was a Log Cabin Republican!  But the LCR’s are in the midst of two ad campaigns specifically targeting Romney – and ONLY Romney (which makes Cooper’s use of the old quote even more suspicious).

              <

              p>Likewise – David Cercone described himself on camera as a ‘concerned undecided’ – but says he’s for Obama in his profile!  To ask if a candidate would ‘accept’ the LCR support was a loaded question at best.

              <

              p>I simply cannot believe that out of 5,000 videos, NOBODY asked about gay rights or gay marriage except two committed Democrats.  There was a valid question to be asked – but not by these questioners.

              <

              p>And before you say their experience trumps the political – WOULD you let Condi Rice ask foreign policy questions at a Dem. debate?

              • I didn’t think the candidates answered his question for the most part.  To be sure, his question was somewhat specific, but then we got rambling about generalities for answers.

                <

                p>Of course the LCR question is loaded… all political questions are.  GOP candidates [and Dem candidates] have to define how they feel about gay people, and the LCR question approaches just that.

                <

                p>Frankly, I find this statement really concerning:

                I simply cannot believe that out of 5,000 videos, NOBODY asked about gay rights or gay marriage except two committed Democrats.  There was a valid question to be asked – but not by these questioners.

                Are you claiming that these two questioners aren’t capable of asking valid questions at a GOP debate?  You’re back to the schtick that the person asking the question matters.  Regarding questions, judge not by the color of the political party, but by the content of the question itself.

                <

                p>And to be honest, you bet I’d let Condi Rice ask a foreign policy question, so long as the moderator is seemingly fair.  The candidates are running for president — not president of red states or blue voters.  Condi Rice is an American, and she’s just as entitled as the rest of us to ask questions, be they “gotcha” or just tough questions about the implications of a plank of any candidate’s platform.

              • …here is what the General has to say about being a plant.  You are generally defferential to the integrity of those who dedicate their lives to military service and General Kerr certainly foots that bill.  Still think he was a plant?  Keep in mind that you are implicitly calling him a liar if you say that you do.

      • You used hyperbole in your “green blood” comment – a literary device that some here use liberally, but are obviously quite incapable of comprehending when employed by the “differently winged”.

        <

        p>Others seem content to let their myopic, unsubstantial views of Drudge and of Fox obfuscate any rational response to your question regarding the li’l dem’s boycott of the Fox debate. The answer being, quite obviously, that Democrat candidates are averse to forums not moderated by fawning toadies.

        <

        p>I applaud the Republican candidates for showing up and rising above the kiddie format of last nights event. What that the other side could show some spine as well.

        • Others seem content to let their myopic, unsubstantial views of Drudge and of Fox obfuscate any rational response to your question regarding the li’l dem’s boycott of the Fox debate.

          <

          p>Whatever the Left’s criticism of Drudge or Fox is, it is not unsubstantial — or unsubstantiated.

          <

          p>Polling also shows that Fox viewers are more loyally Republican than any other demographic polled — including members of the GOP itself. Preaching to the choir may be a waste of time, but so too, as St. Francis discovered, is preaching to the fish.

          • I find the reflexive condemnation of Fox by some to be rather amusing, borne more of inculcation than edification.

            <

            p>I somehow manage to watch/read CNN, MSNBC, kos, the globe et al. without having to delouse. But then, I’m independent, and have no Pavlovian devotion to party.

            <

            p>We’ll just have to agree to disagree as to what constitutes substantiation and what does not.
             

            • … we can all praise the stance that you “have no Pavlovian devotion to party.”.  By extension it follows that having a Pavlovian devotion to party is undesirable.  Given that, it should be unsurprising why many would find FOX news undesirable as well.

            • Because, IMO, the right is correct about the point of view taken by most of the so-called mainstream media.  And then I spent a week watching FOX.

              <

              p>Have you ever spent a week watching FOX news?

      • You’ve succeeded, yet again, in distracting us from the main question. You’ve turned this, yet again, into a debate about Democrats and their behaviour: Which behaviour might, in a certain light and with an aging prescription, be viewed as slightly beyond the pale… failing, yet again, to contrast that with the clearly reprehensible behaviour, in full daylight and 20/10 perception, of your candidate(s) and your party.  I know you want to win, but really, you’ve already lost… and no amount of Romney in the White House is gonna turn it into a win. Ever.  

        <

        p>Wait… feel that…? that little twiggle in your belly…?  That was a pang. That’s your soul struggling to harmonize with the truth. Go with it.

        <

        p>

        *[new]  Stomv – the front page of Drudge is a GAUNTLET of citations…  (0.00 / 0)

        <

        p>A gauntlet, you say? An open invitation to combat?  How very… journalistic-ish-y sorta kinda…  

      • It’s one thing to have an editorial slant, it’s another thing to be the Right wings personal propaganda and slander machine, which is Fox News. Why should anyone appear on O’Reilly’s show? His remarks are  racist, filled with lies and he attacks kids who are sexually abused, saying Shawn Hornbeck had more fun getting raped than going to school.

        <

        p>O’Reilly is a Republican Rosie O’Donnell.  Only Rosie admits she’s a comedian with an extremely slanted bias.  

    • Does the question have an intrinsic value seperate from the person who asked it?

      <

      p>Sorry, channeling my old Philosophy and the Arts prof there.

      • or in this case the question, you kill the messenger.  That is what Porc is doing here.  It’s the oldest diversionary tactic in the book.

  3. Did I miss the discussion on health care and the environment? I admit I was pretty bored with the racist homophobic divisiveness all night.

    <

    p>I like how we pretend we live in a democracy and we let the media keep telilng us its true. The media helped the administration go to war and helped the administration steal two elections.  

    <

    p>CNN is becoming Fox.  Have you seen lou dobbs racist power hour eveynight?

    <

    p>Have you seen the thousands of anti-Chavez articles and reports peppered with faulty “facts” and polls?    

    • The issue isn’t whether or not they’re true.  There are gajillions of truths.  Which ones get highlighted matters, and the media seems to get a free pass on their choice of distribution of what is newsworthy.

      • And then they create “debates” to give each side a “fair” and “even” chance to argue, even if all the science and all the facts point to one truth (eg global warming).  

  4. …I really do wish that the people who did the SullyWatch blog would start it up again.  As far as I’m concerned, Sullivan is a nitwit.  

    <

    p>Sometimes he comes across as being a sentient being, usually, no.  His British accent may give hims some notoriety among some people in the Colonies, but I wouldn’t pay any more attention to his political opinions than I would to Huggie Grant’s or Michael Caines’s, who also sprout British accents and who are much more accomplished in their fields.

    <

    p>I guess in the meantime we’ll have to rely on Somersby, but he can’t be everywhere all the time.

    • of people and institutions that you like, and a list of people and institutions that you dislike the point of vituperation, compiled from your comments.

      <

      p>Off the top of my head and with a small amount of research, I’ve got:

      <

      p>Likes:  Wellesley, MA; Germany; scientists; Star Trek metaphors; particle accelerators; chemistry apparatus; Tom Friedman; Barney Frank; sprinkling German phrases and idioms into English prose; Speigel International edition; Guns, Germs and Steel; Elizabeth Edwards

      <

      p>Intense Dislikes: Andrew Sullivan; PBS; Rep. Henry Hyde; Judeo-Christian scripture; Senator Schumer; the Catholic Church; the LDS Church; churches, generally; GWB; the New York Times; Peter Porcupine; cable TV;  chili served by midwestern chain restaurants; Sen. Lieberman; comment ratings; comments that push the right margin; Mitt Romney; NPR; bounty hunters; the Clintons; the Boston Herald; the Center for American Progress; whiny young people; people who misread the indentaion when replying; the pope; Barack Obama; the Guardian; Sen. Feinstein; Dick Cheney; quoting Wagner for commercial or Hollywood purposes

      <

      p>Mild dislikes: baseball; unnecessary software upgrades; Cincinnati, OH; Todd Feinburg

      • i’d be terribly flattered at all the time and attention you spent researching my every like and dislike.  i think CMD’s got a crush on someone. 😉

        • suggests to me that I am not a viable candidate for online dating services.  The meatspace meeting is bound to disappoint in a spectacular way.

          <

          p>I suspect that I am not alone in finding raj to be, alternately, (i) a maddening and insufferable pedant, and (ii) tellin’ it like it is and absolutely right.

          <

          p>He is sui generis.  [Damn, now I’m doing it.]

          • This whole thing cracks me up. Well done.

            <

            p>I also seem to remember raj having a penchant for Goethe & Brecht, but maybe that was some other BMG ‘pedant’.

            <

            p>raj-you owe CMD a “6” in here somewhere.

          • perhaps we should compile a list re: CMD’s likes and dislikes.

            <

            p>dislikes: when raj is a maddening and insufferable pedant.

            <

            p>likes: when raj is tellin’ it like it is and absolutely right.

            <

            p>oh i see, with you it’s raj this and raj that.  raj raj RAJ!

            • Everything can be distilled to Brady Bunch episode.  Here’s one for the 2008 election.  Indeed, one wishes someone had advised the entire Bush administration not to play ball in the house before they smashed everything up.

              <

              p>I should add, to be completely candid, that finding raj insufferable correlates loosely, but not completely, with items upon which I disagree with raj.  Tellin’ it like it is generally correlates to his put downs of Tom’s opinion, republican rock radio machine, et al.

      • I realize that that is anathema to many Americans, but I also realize that you are far too intelligent to consider criticizm an on/off switch.

        <

        p>Likes.

        <

        p>Wellesley.  I mention that because that is our current abode in the US.  If you take that as a “like” so be it, but it isn’t a like.  I have often used that as a platform from which I criticized the town government.

        <

        p>Germany.  I mention that to suggest to you that other countries and other practices have figured out other ways to solve problems that are endemic to the US.  If you don’t want to consider them, feel free.  BTW, a number of years ago, a German living in Germany told us that we would not want to emigrate from the US to Germany for a number of reasons.  And, by the way, there is currently a series on one of the German cable channels (forget which one) about Germans emigrating from Germany  to destinations as far away as Australia.  Germany isn’t a paradise, but it has addressed problems (health care, education) that Americans want to ignore.

        <

        p>I don’t have the slightest idea where you get the idea that I like Tom Friedman; I’ve lampooned him at every bend.

        <

        p>Frank?  Unfortunately CMD you have not been paying attention.  I did not laud Barney for his policies.  I lauded him because he listened to his constituents and was willing to speak with at least one of them on a Friday night.  I’m sure that you can understand the difference.

        <

        p>Spiegel International edition?  Well, of course.  If the US isn’t interested in what its prospective followers believe, the US will be a leader of one, itself.  Not much of a leader, is it?  That’s one of the things that is often lost on the “We’re Number One” Crowd.

        <

        p>Regarding Guns, Germs and Steel,” yes I found it an interesting science book.  But, as I mentioned here and elsewhere, I will withhold judgement as to whether the author substantiated his thesis.  I’m (not) sure that you understand the difference.

        <

        p>Regarding Mrs. Edwards, yes, she comes across much more forcefully than John does.  As I recall (and you have been continually remiss in not citing to source) that was my point.

        <

        p>Dislikes:

        <

        p> Andrew Sullivan  yes, he’s a buffoon

        <

        p>PBS Yes, it’s a whore for their corporate “underwriters” (so is PBS, by the way)

        <

        p>Rep. Henry Hyde hypocrite

        <

        p>Judeo-Christian scripture gawd knows what that means.  Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Council of Nicea in 325 CE at which a few pharisees gathered together to ask the lord’s blessings and then proceeded to determine what was and was not to comprise the Christian (don’t even think about getting the Judeo portion involved in that) scriptures.

        <

        p>Churches generally?  Let them pay their taxes like the rest of us.

        <

        p>The NYTimes?  Oh, please, give me a break.  They have been whoring for at least 15 years, if not longer.  The 15 years relates to their “coverage” of the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal.  I’ll go back a few decades and remind you that the Sulzberger’s chief editor, Abe Rosenthal, refused to allow the NYTimes to cover anything homosexual.  All the news that’s fit to wrap fish in is their proper mantra.

        <

        p>chili served by midwestern chain restaurants  If you had actually tasted the chili (I did) you would know how bad it is.

        <

        p>Time to call it quits.  At least for now.

        <

        p>Note to Shane unter:  Not all of us are interested in learning how to do Umlauts (cap U)  on HTML merely for the purpose of doing Umlauts on the Internet.

          • how appropriate to learn some practical tools in a diary about impractical ftools.

            <

            p>nïfty päg&euml, Dävïd, thx!

          • Just remember the appropriate code numbers and hit it while holding the [ALT] button.  Thus [ALT]+ 0228 turns into ä.  If you use a small subset of special characters, it isn’t an onerous burden on your memory.  In some cases, you ought to be able to set up your own keyboard shortcuts to provide even easier access to special characters.  For example, in some of the scientific writing I did, the  micro character µ was so frequent I just changed [CRTL]+[SHIFT]+u to produce µ when typed.

            <

            p>My knowledge of German is rusty and fading, and the liberal schmear of Schreiben auf Deutsch in raj’s posts ought to be intelligible to me, yet I’m often thrown by an ae where an ä ought to be.

            <

            p>To raj above: I disagree with your assertion that umlaut ought to be capitalized.  The word has been adopted into English as a proper term in linguistics, and should be capitalized as any other word in English.  It isn’t standard to capitalize kindergarten or schadenfreude, after all.

            <

            p>Since we’re talking here on BMG about various Mitt misfortunes, schadenfreude is what it’s all about, no?

            • …I have never seen that “Umlaut” was adopted into English.  Kindergarten, yes.  I always capitalize Schadenfreude and also Weltanschauung, both of which were adopted into English.

              <

              p>A perhaps interesting aside.  As far as I can tell, German public schools do not provide for Kindergarten.  It’s a private arrangement.

          • …and it has never worked.  I’ll continue using the substitue “ue,” “oe” etc.

            <

            p>A few years ago, the German cultural ministers ticked me off when they issued their new Rechtscreibung.  After a number of years of learning the correct way of writing German, they did away with the s-set in “dass” (the character that looks like a “beta”).  And they added an extra “f” in “Schifffahrt.”  The humorous thing is that, man on the street interviews indicated that more than a few Germans didn’t know how to spell (then Schiffahrt) anyway.

            • the umlaut is used in dutch to indicate a vowel which should not be absorbed into a dipthong.  for example, the word België (Belgium).  The umlaut on the e lets us know that that vowel should be pronounced independent from the preceeding i.  So it sounds like Bell-xgee-ah (sorta).  Without the umlaut, the word would be pronounced Bell-xgee.

              • It’s called a dieresis. Sometimes you see it in the English words “naive” and “cooperation” serving the same duty.

            • ….is a littly snarky, but I can’t help but point out that you spelled the German word for “spelling” incorrectly.  It is spelled – Rechtschreibung.  A mere oversight on your part, no doubt, but funny all the same.

              • a little snarky, and a little funny at the same time. But this is the default ‘raj’ tribute thread, so he can spell it any damn way that he pleases. I’ll wait for the official raj response, or three.

        • as a non-intentional comedian.

          <

          p>Maybe I was thinking of Paul Krugman?  No, I think he belongs in the lower list as well.

          <

          p>Judeo-Christian scriptures.  Apparently you pretend to be obtuse in order to get an opportunity to serve up one of your “apparently you are…..” comments.  Different Christian denominations include different texts, and differet translations of those texts, in their canon.  Jews have their Torah, and the other books including the histories, the prophets, etc.; they do not use the terms “Old Testament” or “Bible.”  My term is broad enough to encompass all of these, as you doubtless know.  I think it is fair to say this is properly listed.

          <

          p>I think you should embrace the Umlauts.

  8. I am getting tired of Romney bashing my home state of Massachusetts. This guy is such a phony. Shame on the Republicans if they nominate this bum.  

  9. Peter is right, folks.  These substantial questions on controversial issues have no place in a Republican debate.  The following questions should be asked at the next Republican debate to balance out this train-wreck of information:

    <

    p>How much do you love America?
    How much do you love the troops?
    How much do you love God?
    How much do you love Jesus?
    How much do you love Ronald Reagan?

    <

    p>Are the Democrats ideologically closer to Nazis or Islamist terrorists?
    Are the Democrats more tactically similar to Nazis or Islamist terrorists?
    Are the Democrats more inspired by the Nazis or Islamist terrorists?
    Explain why Harry Truman, JFK, and Martin Luther King are actually conservatives.
    If the Democrats win, in which way or ways will America suffer a fatal blow in the following four years?
    What basic fundamental principles of America do the Democrats actively seek to undermine?

    • …if it involves making love to the corpus of the Ronald Reagan myth?

      <

      p>If America is a “Christian Nation”, is it also a “White Nation”?  

Archives