Lucky...

It isn't terroristic, communistic, or any of the above. It is however just plain disrespectful to the veterans of our country, both alive and dead, who have died to give you the right to your constant barrage of posts... It is a simple display of respect. I also stand for the national anthems of other countries when I am their guest there. I guess that makes me traitorous too. Maybe you can explain why it is such a big deal to salute the flag, or stand for our national anthem? On a side note is it Saturday where you live? Do you get away from the PC much? You must type awfuly fast. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is however just plain disrespectful to the veterans of our country, both alive and dead, who have died to give you the right to your constant barrage of posts... I'm one of those motherfuckers that seved, so what's your point? I didn't serve in a time of war, but would have gladly gone to war. Even if I wasn't dissent or abstainance is an option for all Americas, vets or not. I have huge respect for troops, wartime or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a simple display of respect. I also stand for the national anthems of other countries when I am their guest there. I guess that makes me traitorous too. It means you're excercizing your right to show what feelings you wish. Freedom to stand for an anthem also includes the right to decide not to stand for an anthem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe you can explain why it is such a big deal to salute the flag, or stand for our national anthem? Not a big deal, not a big deal not to, and that's the problem, you think it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On a side note is it Saturday where you live? Do you get away from the PC much? You must type awfuly fast. HUH?

A) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic se·man·tic 2. of or pertaining to semantics. That takes care of the issue of the, "s" or not at the end. B) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic se·man·tic 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion. To me the fact that no one stopped for the national anthem and this is a disgrace, as you inferred, is an arrisal from the different meanings of a silly symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax. Semantic(s) is a complex word, but in modern linguistics has to do with signs or symbols and I think it is semantic to symbolize a song for a nation. Now, if I were a true American like you, I would close my eyes and love everything American, killing overseas w/o legitimate provacation, Imperialism and the sort. I'm not, I'm one of those silly liberals and if I were alive in the early civil rights era I would have fought for civil rights at some level, unlike the true American conservative, promoting it. So if you're done being grammar checker Jefferey, can we get on to discussing how it's terroristic, Communistic, etc to not stand for the flag, National Anthem, etc?

Birdman ??? You mean Birdlike, right?? Heaven help, if Birdlike now is a birdman, he might send his "messages" from heaven down to earth .....

Concur strongly. While I have no doubt that there exist among the 90M or so Republicans (or conservatives) in the US a few who do espouse Nazi ideas/neo-Aryan/anti-government ideas, the overwhelmingly vast majority don't. VR/Marg Naziism = metaphore.

Those idiot libs that got rid of slavery didn't think for a second about all those poor farmers they destroyed. Typical.

Not in literal terms, but the reality is otherwise. The liberal political mindset now consistently seeks to funnel as much as possible through government oversight, regardless of mandate. The argument could be made that "true" communism is in fact very conservative. However, as you point out it's a matter of perspective. Adam Smith's work is liberal economic theory. I don't dispute that, I said that liberal economic theory does not equate to liberal political theory. That's what I said... >>>>>>>>>>>>>The liberal political mindset now consistently seeks to funnel as much as possible through government oversight, regardless of mandate. Even if true, as opposed to the neo-con agenda to funnel as much thru legitimate governmental channels under teh guise of need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.The argument could be made that "true" communism is in fact very conservative. However, as you point out it's a matter of perspective. And American conservatism shares some attributes with Communism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't dispute that, I said that liberal economic theory does not equate to liberal political theory. Sure it does, liberation politically is akin to liberation fiscally, esp in a nation that is based upon Capitalism and social svs are hard to come by.

Don't you think neo-conservative policies have driven welfare out of these areas, hence they became worse?

Stupid? Maybe. Fun? YES! I'm with ya, neo-con brother, slavery should still be here and we should never have fought the britts.

That is only because we haven't taken enough from the corporations and small business owners that provide the jobs, innovation, and economic force in this company. We need to take more from them, make bigger social programs, bigger government. The double speak refrence is ironic... I heard the democrats are going to increase the chocolate ration if Obama is elected. Yea, that trickle down thing is great....worked so well for Hoover and Reagan, not to mention Bush.

Are you joking? Last 50 years have yielded handouts to the military indust complex maybe, not social svs, esp the last 30. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'll bet most people on this board haven't been near those areas in a long time, if ever. Go see what your dollars have been spent on...see the effects of "government taking care of it's citizens". What tax dollars? They're going to the military complex and the debt.

Don't upset the liberal. But feel free to call any conservative a neo con. I'm a conservative southern boy with a great family, a strong marriage, and a steady income. I believe in God and support the President no matter what party he's from. Good lord, I'm a fucking crazy ass neo con. I'm sure you supported Clinton....whatever

As discussed in other threads, liberalism freed the slaves, fought the Britts and gave Rosa Parks the right to sit on the bus. Liberalism made/makes this country great, unless you like Republican Naziism. I agree with the rest, keep shoveling off trillions to our military when there is no enemy and shun social programs where there is dire need - it makes great sense to me.

But she could MC over the most totally awesome beauty pageant.

The argument is that life begins at conception. Termination of the life is therefore, murder, which is illegal. A law that most of us don't have a problem with. As for government intervention, it does seem as though we have lost our way...we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and if the fairness doctrine passes, you'll see instant erosion of our First Amendment rights... ...quite meddlesome... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The argument is that life begins at conception. Termination of the life is therefore, murder, which is illegal. A law that most of us don't have a problem with. That's the argument, the losing argument or the dissnting argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As for government intervention, it does seem as though WE have lost our way...we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and if the fairness doctrine passes, you'll see instant erosion of our First Amendment rights... Uh, we? No, the neo-cons have departed from the great President Eisenhower and his fear of the Military Industrial Complex that has killed our future as a nation and made a few people rich. The neo-cons own that one. The Recent Dems have done what they can to stop that, so WE don't own that one.

That's the neo-con facade, the Republicans try to tell you less tax, less government, yet they are responsible for at least 3/4 of the 10T debt, 90% of it during the last 3 Republican presidents.

One example. Yea, but that was a long time ago....2 days ago. Birdman, just quit, you are the grammar Nazi, even when it is unwarranted, as with this illustration. It really subtracts from your, uh message.

"I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend? " Posting 76 - it's pretty clear that you intended to look up Cal's information. But it's ok - we now know you can't help it, having chosen Co-Ed U for your education. That's why you keep hearing those whooshing noises above you, kept missing the part where I didn't blame Bush or Clinton for CA's historic problems with a consistent budget for the UC system. Asking what univ he attended means I'm going to look it up? I realize the neo-con mantra requires all others to assume the neo-con position and to "proove" their way away from it, but that is not reasonable. I looked up mine, wholly evidenced my point, now you do so. It's innane to require me to look up the counter-point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it's ok - we now know you can't help it, having chosen Co-Ed U for your education. ASU????? >>>>>>>>>>>>>That's why you keep hearing those whooshing noises above you, kept missing the part where I didn't blame Bush or Clinton for CA's historic problems with a consistent budget for the UC system. Right, and I pointed it out that it is inferrential that Bush likely cut spending that relieved the states so they could continue to fund universities. Blame Clinton, hell, he was the education president giving tax breaks for tuition. But you want to lump your trainwreck with Clinton - sorry,. not buying. Point is, there are just too many coincidences with the neo-con run that conflicted with Clinton's run. The debt/deficits ran reverse, education, a lot of economic and social issues ran opposite of each other, giving us the agenda of each party/president/congress.

He said she seems too far right. All evidence seems to support that, evangelical, anti-abortion at all costs, etc. Just not the moderate that the country is hungry for.

>>>>>>>>>>>>You could take it further to El Jefe Clintonista... OMG, what's with the silly name calling.... oh,. I thought i was someone above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>...but he didn't have any military or foreign policy experience and won the election, did he? He was traveled, but let's face, US politics are so fucked that that doesn't matter. Clinton won because Perot split the Repub vote. Obama will win because the right have fucked things up so bad, just as when Carter won. Sad but true, but people run from candidates/parties more than to candidates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is really funny as hell. We've got idiots roaring about Gov. Palin's lack of experience who were recently defending Sen. Obama's lack of experience Just as we recently had idiots, the idiots to start the rhetoric about Obama's inexperience, then pick a less experienced candidate for VP. Again, the most crucial pick here is the R VP, as McSame likely will won't make 77, his full term if he wins. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Morons decrying Palin's lack of foreign policy experience who voted for another governor from Arkansas with no foreign policy experience a few years ago. The other morons crying about Clinton didn't realize he was a Rhodes Scholar, which obviously susbstituted for foreign experience. Remember the morons who started the lack of exp rhetoric, they have big R. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Even a few dems are out there claiming she's there on the ticket solely because she's a beautiful woman - her accomplishments notwithstanding - so it looks like the dems have the sexist vote locked up along with their regular racist vote ($harpton, Jack$on, FarraKKKhan and their ilk)! Who knows why she's there based upon McSame's intent. It's a radical desperate measure. The Repubs had the extreme vote locked up, they needed the swing vote, they didn't do thimgs to get it with her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, she's a fabulous choice. With a few years behind a mentor like McCain, just wait until she has the top job. Hopefully she lives that long. And she lost the Limbaugh chauvenist (sp) vote, as that would make #2 and #3 a woman, not an issue with the left, but fatcat good ole boy GOPers won't like that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hehehehehe,. Oh, happy day. McCain-Palin. What a great ticket. Vice President Palin has a nice ring to it. So does the right wing fascist nightmare is over, sound great.

As far as ideology goes, no doubt she will help with the Republican base. On the other hand, her extreme anti-abortion views (no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health) will be a serious obstacle for gaining independents, especially the Hillaryistas. That's my point, McSame is so right that he needed someone moderate. Just being young and semi-hot doesn't make you moderate when you act like a social Nazi.

What's with the childish name calling? I despise Clinton but still referred to him as President Clinton out of respect for the office. And again with the hypocracy. Obama has admitted to repeated use of cocaine. Who cares, that's semantic to worry about names, I wasn't referring to anyone here. The McSame camp started the whole, "lack of experience" idiocy. I'm sure you're referred to Clinton in ugly terms, I'm over it. I guess the denial of Bush is the worst, esp since he was in the military, kind of, flying jets as a hobby, sort of, and the Dems aren't all ass-tight with their war on things they engage in.

I thought he represented change. Something not mainstream. Pick an argument. ho-bag has been married 20 years with 5 kids. not sure what your definition of ho-bag is. Holy shit. Again, I thought we needed change. But now we don't. We need a more established candidate. Like Obama. Seriously, pick an argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought he represented change. Something not mainstream. Pick an argument. That's why he is change, he isn't an elitist millionaire; get it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ho-bag has been married 20 years with 5 kids. not sure what your definition of ho-bag is. Former pageant winner puts her as a bit of a ho bag when we're talking president. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Holy shit. Again, I thought we needed change. But now we don't. We need a more established candidate. Like Obama. Seriously, pick an argument. Nice skewing of words, when I wrote more established, as you dishonestly diced my sentence, I was referring to a woman who was more established, as in > 2 years, perhaps a bit older, a replacement for a likely ill McSame. And a nutty radical evangelical? Why? The country doesn't want to have our morality legslated.

If you can show me a thread where I stopped responding to actual bona fide discussion to digress into digs about grammar, punctuation and spelling, please do so. I don't think I ever "resort" to that, least of all if someone (for whatever reason) thinks they have me on the ropes in a debate. In fact, as I said (and you ignored) I have NOT been "my old self" picking apart spelling -- except, as noted, to point out the irony of Amazon doing it and making her own errors in the process. That kind of irony is acceptable to point out, I feel. Right, so you gave yourself an out, if I spend the time finding you playing Mr Grammar, you'll say that you weren't on the ropes, but you did play spelling Nazi. Jefferey, just quit, back to your room.

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?! (you'd better know I'm kidding!) Exactly my point, that's why you're here. HOLY FUCKING SHIT, you blew right on past the and to go believing that this post was an earnest attack on Mike's grammar instead of the JOKE-attack that it actually was! This is unbelievable! It's like I'm debating with a caricature! Are you not able to understand my sarcasm? He's in your corner, here to cheerlead for you, I was aware of your sarcasm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is unbelievable! It's like I'm debating with a caricature I know what I'm debating with, just that I can't say or be outed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you guys are only just full of SHIT ... My feelings aren't hurt and I suggest we go to PM and call each other names, I think it's fun so I'll let you initiate. But I see where this is going and I'm trying to do us both a favor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I really don't see how that's a PA, though. It's not attacking the person, it's attacking the thing that was said. The emphasis was on, "you guys" that's a PA as in it's personal. I don't care, I just don't wanna go down that road. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"You guys TALK about wanting 'change,' but when it comes down to it, when change is offered, you don't actually want it, do you." As for change, getting some backwoods, hillbilly, redneck 2-year governor as VP isn't change, it's incompetence and extremism. Obama is by all accounts mainstream and serious, pageant ho-bag right wing nut what's-her-name is a pathetic attempt to win. And when you realize you don't have a chance, you should do desperate things, just as with a football game with the time winding down, down 2 scores, you go for plays you normally wouldn't. I just think a more established, less radical candidate would have been more prudent. I do think the woman selection was a good idea and I want to see us get away from the WASP male president and enter the 20th century 108 years late. I think we will become more progressive once we depart from the crap we have established so long. We will have other than a WASP male in the presidency/VP.