Just a word on this libertarian v. conservative v. parties thing:

Libertarians championed Goldwater's cause in 1964. And even Nixon in 1968. The "reluctant" break came in and around 1970, when Nixon declared, "We are all Keynesians, now!" In the next four years he signed many horrific anti-libertarian bills like OSHA, etc... Reagan, again, brought some libertarians back into the fold in 1980 (though that year, I think, proved to be the peak year for the Libertarian Pres candidate).

Bush 41 lost the libertarians completely. And Bush 43 cannot get them back. Much of this is due to the extreme John Burch-like conspiracy nature of libertarians, and the fact that the Bush's are Ivy Leaguers.

But niether is the party that champions a national health system (the Democrats) going to woo them into thier fold.

At least, I don't think so... :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Since when has an eloquently written, spoken, sung, chirped, croaked, and/or otherwise, uttered word ever fed a hungry child? After all, it's all about the children, and the "village" it takes to raise them. Right, Croak?

Speaking of children, would you care to see the actual federal dollars spent on the elderly vs. the young, Croaker? There's a reason why there are no "tears" in their eyes.

They can't afford them. :wink:

Lambster--Now you've hit on something I agree with. You know as sure as Jack Frost that the mid-life Xers and the young-adult Millies will surely love having piles and baskets of old people wheeling all around, letting their little white dogs poop all over the place, while they suck down the last dregs of Social Security.

Can't we just send the old ones off on a one-way cruise to...well, somewhere near Hawaii? Don't we need to start planning for this? Otherwise, its all over like a snapping turtle.

You must show us the way, Marc.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by justmom

Nah, it's not winter yet. 85 degrees in the shade for me today. :wink:

But seriously, Earthshine, that's what Marc's been saying. ....the boomers are too young, they don't control congress completely......

You'll have to read his posts, He waxes more eloquent than I.

That's eloquent-ly

Actually Kevin,
It's not eloquent-ly
Eloquently is an adverb. An adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb.
For example, The speach was eloqently spoken.
spoken in this context is the verb, speach is the noun, and eloqently is the modifier of the verb "spoken".

In my sentence, "He waxes more eloquent than I". Eloquent is used as the adjective and thus is used in proper context.

So if you have something constructive to say about my opinons, bring it on. If all you have to do is pick fly shit out of pepper, start picking.

Originally Posted by justmom

Actually Kevin,
It's not eloquent-ly
Eloquently is an adverb. An adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb.
For example, The speach was eloqently spoken.
spoken in this context is the verb, speach is the noun, and eloqently is the modifier of the verb "spoken".

In my sentence, "He waxes more eloquent than I". Eloquent is used as the adjective and thus is used in proper context.

So if you have something constructive to say about my opinons, bring it on. If all you have to do is pick fly shit out of pepper, start picking.

MMMMmmmm....that's "speech" not speach. :-?

What, haven't anything to say today, Ms. Levin?

What the hell is it with you idiot nitpickers anyway? Good grief, get a life.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

What, haven't anything to say today, Ms. Levin?

What the hell is it with you idiot nitpickers anyway? Good grief, get a life.

you missed the comma between "nitpickers" and "anyway".


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

What, haven't anything to say today, Ms. Levin?

What the hell is it with you idiot nitpickers anyway? Good grief, get a life.

you missed the comma between "nitpickers" and "anyway".


TK

That initial 'y' should have been capitalized, and the period should come before the closing quotation mark. :wink:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That initial 'y' should have been capitalized, and the period should come before the closing quotation mark. :wink:

exactly.

you know, i never got that whole "period should come before the closing quotation mark" thing. it defies all common sense. the quotation mark is part of the sentence, and the period is not part of the quote.

whatever.


TK

Originally Posted by Justin '77

and the period should come before the closing quotation mark. :wink:

American Grammar Rule: "A period or comma following a quotation should be placed inside the closing quotation marks."

But, I would think is should have been "anyway?" Not "anyway."

My rule on commas: "When in doubt, leave it out." :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

My rule on commas: "When in doubt, leave it out." :wink:

A close relation to the engineering rule of thumb: "When in doubt, make it stout."

Works for beer drinking, too. . .

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

American Grammar Rule: "A period or comma following a quotation should be placed inside the closing quotation marks."

yeah, i know it's the rule, but it's a dumb-ass rule (as i explained above). so i simply refuse to follow it.

now, if someone could explain to me the logic behind it, and it made sense, i might follow it.


TK

An interesting item about grammar: Shakespeare broke most of the grammar rules that our teachers drilled into us and he was considered by them to be the greatest writer in the English language. I always wondered about that.

I guess you can get away with it if you are Shakespeare!

By the by, Mr. Lamb. where is your sense of humor today? I just found the whole series of posts to be funny--each one meant to correct a spelling or grammar error and yet each one had another error in it. :wink:

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by justmom

Nah, it's not winter yet. 85 degrees in the shade for me today. :wink:

But seriously, Earthshine, that's what Marc's been saying. ....the boomers are too young, they don't control congress completely......

You'll have to read his posts, He waxes more eloquent than I.

That's eloquent-ly

Actually Kevin,
It's not eloquent-ly
Eloquently is an adverb. An adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb.
For example, The speach was eloqently spoken.
spoken in this context is the verb, speach is the noun, and eloqently is the modifier of the verb "spoken".

In my sentence, "He waxes more eloquent than I". Eloquent is used as the adjective and thus is used in proper context.

So if you have something constructive to say about my opinons, bring it on. If all you have to do is pick fly shit out of pepper, start picking.

Um...you are right that 'eloquent' is an adjective, as in "He is an eloquent speaker" where 'eloquent' modifies the noun 'speaker'. However in your sentence you used it incorrectly as an adverb to modify the verb 'to wax'. As such, the adverb 'eloquently' is indeed correct.

Actually, I don't have anything better to do right now that to help my fellow posters improve their speach -- I mean 'speech' (ha-ha!). However, I'm sure that will change in due time 8).

Where is The Grammarian when you need her??? ;-)

BTW, your metaphor "pick fly shit out of pepper" is priceless! I'll have to commit that one to memory for future use.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Where is The Grammarian when you need her??? ;-)

You called?

Actually, the Grammarian was sitting out this one. However, the Grammarian wishes to note that Mr. Parker is absolutely correct on the use of "eloquent" and "eloquently". Since the verb was "to wax", you need the adverb form to modify "waxing" -- hence "eloquently", not "eloquent".

The Grammarian now has to leave for more pressing issues. Thanks.

:wink:

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Where is The Grammarian when you need her??? ;-)

You called?

Actually, the Grammarian was sitting out this one. However, the Grammarian wishes to note that Mr. Parker is absolutely correct on the use of "eloquent" and "eloquently". Since the verb was "to wax", you need the adverb form to modify "waxing" -- hence "eloquently", not "eloquent".

Far be it for me to intrude upon the domain of the Grammarian; yet I must do so here.

You are incorrect to state the the word 'eloquent' is meant to modify the verb 'wax' -- simply due to proximity in the sentence. Rather, much as in the following statements:

"He often waxes poetic"
or
"My pet dog feels ill"
or
"I find myself turning blue"

the final adjective, though far removed from it in time and space, in fact modifies the subject of the sentence. To "wax" meaning to "increase," mom was simply stating that Mr. Lamb is subject to far greater degrees of eloquence than she. "Eloquent" modified "He," so was properly used.

In fact, I wonder how any person could "wax eloquently" (unless you're talking about cars or furniture, and the mere force of your words causes a high sheen on those nearby. . .)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In fact, I wonder how any person could "wax eloquently" (unless you're talking about cars or furniture, and the mere force of your words causes a high sheen on those nearby. . .)

Justin, thanks for making our generation look good! And they claim we learned nothing in school! Now when you figure out how to use words to wax the car, please, let us know! Those on this list could certainly have the shiniest cars in town!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Where is The Grammarian when you need her??? ;-)

You called?

Actually, the Grammarian was sitting out this one. However, the Grammarian wishes to note that Mr. Parker is absolutely correct on the use of "eloquent" and "eloquently". Since the verb was "to wax", you need the adverb form to modify "waxing" -- hence "eloquently", not "eloquent".

Far be it for me to intrude upon the domain of the Grammarian; yet I must do so here.

You are incorrect to state the the word 'eloquent' is meant to modify the verb 'wax' -- simply due to proximity in the sentence. Rather, much as in the following statements:

"He often waxes poetic"
or
"My pet dog feels ill"
or
"I find myself turning blue"

the final adjective, though far removed from it in time and space, in fact modifies the subject of the sentence. To "wax" meaning to "increase," mom was simply stating that Mr. Lamb is subject to far greater degrees of eloquence than she. "Eloquent" modified "He," so was properly used.

In fact, I wonder how any person could "wax eloquently" (unless you're talking about cars or furniture, and the mere force of your words causes a high sheen on those nearby. . .)

Well, this is interesting. According to the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, the verb 'to wax' means 'to grow or become as specified', as in "The weather waxed cool" , meaning that the weather became cool. Applying the same rule of speech, for justmom to say that "Marc waxes eloquent" -- meaning that he becomes eloquent (as he writes) appears to be correct.

So I stand corrected, with the lingering question: does Marc "wax more eloquent", or "wax eloquent more" than justmom? Based on my updated understanding, it would seem that either one's writing either "waxes more eloquent" -- as in 'to a greater degree'-- than another, or "waxes eloquent more (often)". At any rate, it would seem that we learn something new every day.

Thanks, Justin.

Well, that was fun.
BTW Kevin, the pepper thing, borrowed from my dear dad. It is choice.

OK, on to "Evidence"...

I have noticed a mood change in the tv shows lately.
Since 9/11? Not sure.

Last night there was a sniper episode on CSI Miami.
Anyone see it?
At the very end, the sniper is caught. He sneers at the cop and says, "Don't you want to know why?"
The cop says, "Your evil, you enjoy death,I hope you enjoy yours."

It seems as if the public (if you can call screen writers the public)are
transitioning from "WHY?" to black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. If it were a few years ago, I would think that we would be treated to
all kinds of reasons, and an ending with loose ends.

Has anybody else noticed anything like this?

Actually, I haven't been paying much attention to recent TV, but I like the sound of what you've described here. And yes, it definitely sounds 4T'ish.

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, that was fun.
BTW Kevin, the pepper thing, borrowed from my dear dad. It is choice.

OK, on to "Evidence"...

I have noticed a mood change in the tv shows lately.
Since 9/11? Not sure.

Last night there was a sniper episode on CSI Miami.
Anyone see it?
At the very end, the sniper is caught. He sneers at the cop and says, "Don't you want to know why?"
The cop says, "Your evil, you enjoy death,I hope you enjoy yours."

It seems as if the public (if you can call screen writers the public)are
transitioning from "WHY?" to black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. If it were a few years ago, I would think that we would be treated to
all kinds of reasons, and an ending with loose ends.

Has anybody else noticed anything like this?

Not so much on TV as in real life. Case in point: the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed and his youthful sidekick John Lee Malvo. There has been much discussion in the respectable media over whether Gulf War Syndrome might have played a role in Mohammed's actions; meanwhile, in the tabloids, it has been suggested that Malvo was being sexually abused by Mohammed, and that Malvo's resultant 'Helsinki Syndrome' was to blame for his part in the murders.

What is most telling is that although such speculation may make interesting water-cooler discussion, at the end of the day no one really cares one way or the other. In the DC area as well as across the nation, it simply does not matter why these two did what they did. The public wants them tried, convicted, and punished to the fullest extent of the law (i.e. put to death) as swiftly as possible, and the "why" is only relevant to that effect. This outlook also explains why the people of Maryland-- the state most impacted by the snipers, whose law-enforcement officials were most influential in the investigation, and where the snipers were finally apprehended-- are not outraged at the Feds for sending them first to Virginia for trial.

It would seem that the S&H's prediction that in a 4T "justice will be swift--and harsh", is indeed coming to pass.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[ the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed.

The real name is "John Allen Muhammad". You can add nee "Williams" if you like. However, Muhammad is not like a bride, who can retain her maiden name after marriage as a middle name. Once he legally changed his name to "Muhammad", "Williams" was no longer his name.

Originally Posted by The Grammarian

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[ the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed.

The real name is "John Allen Muhammad". You can add nee "Williams" if you like. However, Muhammad is not like a bride, who can retain her maiden name after marriage as a middle name. Once he legally changed his name to "Muhammad", "Williams" was no longer his name.

I know that, of course. I elected to use all of the names he's ever been known by in referring to the creep, as an expression of outrage :evil:

This event today is an example of pure stupidity. Now the question is, do we have a 3T or 4T reaction to it?

Check it out, and think carefully.

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=107942

-----

The real surprise is that this guy has enough testosterone to produce anything to carry his DNA. And since when does he like women?

:lol:

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In fact, I wonder how any person could "wax eloquently" (unless you're talking about cars or furniture, and the mere force of your words causes a high sheen on those nearby. . .)

Justin, thanks for making our generation look good! And they claim we learned nothing in school! Now when you figure out how to use words to wax the car, please, let us know! Those on this list could certainly have the shiniest cars in town!

Excuse me while I have a "Mr Miyagi" moment here....wax on, wax off.... :-)

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, that was fun.
BTW Kevin, the pepper thing, borrowed from my dear dad. It is choice.

OK, on to "Evidence"...

I have noticed a mood change in the tv shows lately.
Since 9/11? Not sure.

Last night there was a sniper episode on CSI Miami.
Anyone see it?
At the very end, the sniper is caught. He sneers at the cop and says, "Don't you want to know why?"
The cop says, "Your evil, you enjoy death,I hope you enjoy yours."

It seems as if the public (if you can call screen writers the public)are
transitioning from "WHY?" to black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. If it were a few years ago, I would think that we would be treated to
all kinds of reasons, and an ending with loose ends.

Has anybody else noticed anything like this?

I watch "24" religiously, and that show is in continuous 4T.

I just wish we had President David Palmer at the helm right now, in real life.