|
|
|
|
Oooops [message #107694] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 11:47 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
See, I interpreted that as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" when in fact what he meant to say was "yeah, she sucked me off in the oval office".
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooops [message #107745] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 13:59 |
AlostSOul
Messages: 101 Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Crimson | "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
See, I interpreted that as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" when in fact what he meant to say was "yeah, she sucked me off in the oval office".
|
"boobay"
the only thing I can say is this: ROFL!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooops [message #107754] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 14:19 |
|
Kholdstare
Messages: 158 Registered: March 2003 Location: Mesa, Arizona
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
<Insert off topic, witty comment here>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooops [message #107763] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 14:54 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943 Registered: February 2003 Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
United Nations = International Authority. You know why? Because your country, and many others, signed the charter saying "we'll play by these rules".
Guess what, if Iraq violates international law, that does NOT give you authority to enforce the repercussions unless the United Nations says so. I don't ever recall seeing a resolution after the warning of resolution 1441 that says "Authorizes all Member States to use all means necessary to overthrow the sovreignty of Iraq".
I do, however remember seeing:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
The very fact that the CoW did not follow through with their commitment to the sovereignty of Iraq and overthrew Saddam, however evil and tyrannical he is, makes this war illegal.
Guess what. Two wrongs don't make a right. They don't under Canadian law, and they don't under international law. If I'm mistaken, please, show me ANYWHERE under international law that is says "two wrongs make a right".
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Oooops [message #107798] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 18:06 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943 Registered: February 2003 Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Regarding this article: Mr. Hunt fails to mention a very key aspect of resolution 1441 that is extemely important:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
Too fully understand why this is such an important reaffirmation, I suggest you read over 678, 686, 687, and 1441 very carefully.
Another interesting article is Article 51. Something me and Warranto are investigating personally right now. So I'll get back to you on that ASAP.
Finally... I'm not sure where you're going with this article, so please enlighten me.
Just for the record, I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam violated UN Resolutions, so don't think that I don't.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
Oooops [message #108000] |
Sat, 14 August 2004 19:59 |
|
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144 Registered: February 2003 Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
I can understand what Bush is saying in that particular video clip. The speech uses a little parallelism, that's all. "The terrorists never stop thinking of ways of harming our country, and neither do we..." (however it goes) makes sense, because obviously to defend against terrorists you'd have to think like a terrorist. To directly state "so that we can defend against them" is condescending, IMO.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
Oooops [message #108003] |
Sat, 14 August 2004 20:28 |
|
Fabian
Messages: 821 Registered: April 2003 Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
Grammaticly, George W. Bush's statement in the said video clip has one (1) correct grammatical meaning. Period.
Since you people obviously need it outlined for you...
George W. Bush | Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
|
Let's take a look at the second sentence. "They" is the subject. It refers to the subject of the previous sentence, which is "Our enemies". So the sentence can logically be replaced with:
"Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
"Do" is a very important word in the second sentence. "Do" refers to the verb of the second sentence's first clause: "stop", which has the adverb, "never" and is attached to the infinitive "thinking". Thus making the complete action clause, "never stop thinking". The direct object of which is "new ways to harm our country".
Because we are adding a negative word ("never"), we must turn "neither" into "either" in order to maintain the meaning, because double negatives are not allowed in English. So now, we can replace the original sentence with:
"Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and we never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people either."
Take it to any English teacher. I can't believe that this is even being disputed. :rolleyes:
|
|
|
|