Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

sekulow is obsessed with "executive privilege and other nonsense."

Their plan is to have the cult screeching EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE! without actually knowing what it means.

Posted
4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I just saw a clip of Lindsey's hissy fit. God, what a pathetic little bitch. 

Link?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Rules require Senators to be in their seats for the duration of the trial and 2 hrs in almost half the GOP is not even in the fucking room. What a joke

That's what we were talking about with the cameras not being allowed with the exception of the main camera. During the Inquiry one could see a lot more of the backstory and behind the scenes. It was illuminating. The last thing McConnell wants right now is sunshine on his sham.

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That's what we were talking about with the cameras not being allowed with the exception of the main camera. During the Inquiry one could see a lot more of the backstory and behind the scenes. It was illuminating. The last thing McConnell wants right now is sunshine on his sham.

taking it further he banned cell phones as well, so no one can live stream this either. what fucking cowards

Posted
taking it further he banned cell phones as well, so no one can live stream this either. what fucking cowards

What is to stop them from doing so anyway? GoPro that shit.
Posted
1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Rules require Senators to be in their seats for the duration of the trial and 2 hrs in almost half the GOP is not even in the fucking room. What a joke

 

Is there some way a dem can wait until the math works, then move to vote on conviction, and 2/3 of those present can vote to convict?

  • Like 4
Posted
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Is there some way a dem can wait until the math works, then move to vote on conviction, and 2/3 of those present can vote to convict?

Not likely.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

weird that my eye went directly to "an hilarious." wat?

same.  is going around the world correcting grammar a job?  because i think i would be pretty ok at it.

i spend about the same amount of time proofing my wife's work emails as i do working my actual job as it is.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Is there some way a dem can wait until the math works, then move to vote on conviction, and 2/3 of those present can vote to convict?

not sure about the quorum rules, but i'm sure they're terrible.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

same.  is going around the world correcting grammar a job?  because i think i would be pretty ok at it.

i spend about the same amount of time proofing my wife's work emails as i do working my actual job as it is.

I wanted a pair of those so bad as a kid, all I could see was the promise, not the grammar.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so you proved that my skepticism of that usage being correct, was, well, correct?

To be completely pedantic (as is my nature), not quite.

Merriam-Webster's guidance is very wishy-washy--go by how it sounds.  Other authorities suggest that "an" is appropriate before "h" whenever the first syllable is not emphasized, and some suggest it's basically just a matter of choice.

That said, the use of "an" is becoming archaic and probably disappear altogether sooner rather than later. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

To be completely pedantic (as is my nature), not quite.

Merriam-Webster's guidance is very wishy-washy--go by how it sounds.  Other authorities suggest that "an" is appropriate before "h" whenever the first syllable is not emphasized, and some suggest it's basically just a matter of choice.

That said, the use of "an" is becoming archaic and probably disappear altogether sooner rather than later. 

there are two terms that exist that describe ways of using grammar.  one is by-the-book traditionalist type, and the other is more of an adapt-by-the-way-it-works-in-daily-life type.  the second type also accounts for the general evolution of the way language is used (more of a "spirit of the law" type).

and it's driving me crazy that i cannot think of the two terms.

Posted
7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

To be completely pedantic (as is my nature), not quite.

Merriam-Webster's guidance is very wishy-washy--go by how it sounds.  Other authorities suggest that "an" is appropriate before "h" whenever the first syllable is not emphasized, and some suggest it's basically just a matter of choice.

That said, the use of "an" is becoming archaic and probably disappear altogether sooner rather than later. 

I've been aware of the use of "an" before historical and have tended to always use it, thinking it was an obscure exception that was somehow grammatically better (I've never heard/read the explanation). But at the end of that article, I saw that "an" was also sometimes used before hotel and realized I've always said it without realizing it.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there are two terms that exist that describe ways of using grammar.  one is by-the-book traditionalist type, and the other is more of an adapt-by-the-way-it-works-in-daily-life type.  the second type also accounts for the general evolution of the way language is used (more of a "spirit of the law" type).

and it's driving me crazy that i cannot think of the two terms.

Google says 'traditional' vs 'functional'. Does that sound correct?

 

*Wait, wait hold up, also see something about 'descriptive' vs 'prescriptive.'

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Addition
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Google says 'traditional' vs 'functional'. Does that sound correct?

no, it's something weird.

i'm starting to think what i'm referring to is "prescriptivist" vs "descriptivist".

which are two words so commonly used that surly thinks they're misspelled.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Google says 'traditional' vs 'functional'. Does that sound correct?

sorry, i meant to say those weren't the words i was thinking of.  but yes, your words are appropriate, and describe basically what i was saying.

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

This thread is about as much of a joke as this impeachment. 

the trial is rotting my brain.  i have to stay sharp.

last night i was still watching at 11:45pm (pac time) and we had an earthquake.  the wife woke up and looked at the tv and was like, "really?  still?"  to which i replied, "we had an earthquake."

  • Like 2
Posted

What trial? These jurors would all be cut. This is a fucking disgrace to the United States live on air. Why the fuck didn't they impeach McConnell instead of Trump?

  • Like 8
Posted

@immamac , it's true, one can only listen to the WH counsel for so long before the little gray cells begin to asphyxiate and perish.

It is probably what the Senate Majority Leader was planning all along: we'll just let the WH council speak while we nap and then vote and go back to sleep.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's amazing to me that the entire R side of the Senate appears to be compromised. That's alarming.

Once you get in ankle-deep in a criminal conspiracy....you're in all the way.  It's why you shouldn't get in one in the first place.

The GOP is firmly in the "we better all hang together, or else we'll surely hang separately" territory.  They really have no other rational choice.  They have to be all-in on the criminal syndicate, because if they don't, they lose its protection.  This is exactly how every criminal organization functions.  Anyone who has spent more than a millisecond in organized crime investigation/prosecution recognizes all of the markers from how the party is conducting itself these days.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

To be completely pedantic (as is my nature), not quite.

Merriam-Webster's guidance is very wishy-washy--go by how it sounds.  Other authorities suggest that "an" is appropriate before "h" whenever the first syllable is not emphasized, and some suggest it's basically just a matter of choice.

That said, the use of "an" is becoming archaic and probably disappear altogether sooner rather than later. 

Pronouncing the "h" separately is a decidedly modern trend.  Historically, the "h" at the beginning of a word was silent or nearly so, and the next letter was inevitably a vowel. Lots of those words come from French, where the h remains silent. Hence, "an."  Brits still deemphasize the initial h, at least the educated ones.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pronouncing the "h" separately is a decidedly modern trend.  Historically, the "h" at the beginning of a word was silent or nearly so, and the next letter was inevitably a vowel.  Hence, "an."  Brits still deemphasize the initial h, at least the educated ones.

funny, because they "sound" the opposite when I hear it



×
×
  • Create New...