But we gotta give them billionaires some tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....everyday in every way. When they are not lying the are enriching themselves and their friends.

And yes Flint still doesn't have clean water and Puerto Rico doesn't have power.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Otherwise, nice Tweet. Back to grammar school with you.
Or buy a copy of Strunk & White, and this time actually read the son of a bitch.

Like "Siri" on an I-phone.

That's why that sort of mistake is made so often. I suggest this because I know someone who uses Siri a lot, and Siri makes that kind of mistake. There is also a feature on an I-phone that suggests a word when you write a text. If you press the wrong button, you get the wrong word.

I seriously doubt that Axelrod doesn't know the difference between "their" and "they're."

But in this computer age, we may see a change in our language that picks the word their for several words that sound the same when spoken. Spelling changes over time. It will change in the internet age. That's my prediction.

"Their" has no verb. "They're" does have a verb.

E.G., "Their stupid" isn't even a sentence. "They're stupid." is a sentence.

We have words that serve as both a noun and a verb.

"Serve" is one of them.

Serve, the noun:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/serve_2

Serve, the verb:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serve

Unless one wishes to verb it.

OMFG! I just verbed "verb"... oh GAWD!!! I just did it again!!!!

Arrrrgh!!!



Nevertheless, I will stand by my claims.

"Their stupid" is just plain stupid, bad English.

together.

I speak a number of languages. Somewhere, centuries ago, the English language began to be formed when the Romans left their words and the Germanic tribes left their words. We now have only a few Anglo-Saxon words in our language. That was one of the original languages as far as we know of the British Isles.

Language is constantly changing. We hear their and they're. They are from the point of view of sound, interchangeable for most of us. Since people type words less and less often, it is likely that our language will become more a language in which the spelling reflects accepted transcription of sound.

Our language is changing now because of computers. It will continue to change. Expressions I learned as a child some 74 years ago are no longer used.

Our Founding Fathers spelled a number of words differently than we do. Amazing, isn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English

And verbing "their" doesn't help any argument to the contrary. I will stand by my posts.

Sorry, friend.

We demand a verb in a sentence. Their is not a verb now, but if it is confused with and becomes merged in meaning with they're, it will be eventually viewed as being a verb.

Language changes over time. The confusion between they are, they're and their as well as there is becoming so common and using the various spellings for the same sound is incompatible with certain technical limitations of computers and phones.

I've made my case. You've attempted to make yours.

I see no point in continuing this back and forth.

My best wishes to you.

Jeezus.

deals with the problem. More and more, people do not spell out words. They just speak them into a microphone and the computer or phone spells the words.

This is not something I particularly like. I'm just explaining the process of the development of language, and I think we are seeing changes in the way words are spelled right now, changes that are due to technological change.

I like my their, there and they're as I was taught them in school. But I notice that my husband relies on Siri for the spelling in his text messages. And it results in a lot of laughter at Siri's lack of English comprehension. We have a good time with it.

But language changes over time, and the differences between their, there and they're are like to disappear as computerese dominates the spelling of words in the English language.

The history of the development of the various European languages is fascinating. Language is always changing. Computers will change our current English. It is inevitable.

and many caught it. But we still know what he was communicating. We can forgive him.





Now if he starts using 'then' for 'than' (which is becoming to common) then he can be condemned.

instead of writing 'they're' is should just be 'they are'.

However, I suspect that would be difficult to do.

'nuff said.

Two wrongs make it right?

I'm sorry. But we lose part of our high ground and ability to call out Trump when we try to justify our behavior by saying it is like Trump's.....

This battle isn't going to be won by who's the nicest. That should be apparent to just fucking everybody by now.

We need more people like Michelle Wolf, those who baldly tell the truth.

Remember George Carlin?

Stupid People:

They aren't talking about anything Trump has done.

They aren't even talking about Huckaby Sanders' lies....they are talking about her eyes.

Judged by how it damaged Trump, it was a miserable failure.

Judged by how it got people to talk about make up, and Michelle Wolf, it succeeded

Lots of “concern” on this an other threads on this topic. 🙄

more so than any comedian who has "gone low."

You compare it to violence in the streets, you say that she single-handedly, with one comedy routine, has set back the pro-choice cause.

And in case you care to even read the article in the OP, you will see that many, many, many are applauding her.

Give that a try, would you? Take a break from talking about how awful and "low" and catastrophic one single woman is with a blistering rebuke of the press and our president, and actually read what you are rebutting.

It would be refreshing change.....

She shows utter contempt for the correspondents who disagree with her political views as well as for the truth in many instances.

She should not complain considering that she is probably the rudest press secretary to hold the job so long. Just rude.

There is no reason to be that rude to the members of the press. Like the press secretary, they are trying to do a good job. She holds them in contempt.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders got a taste of what she dishes out every day to members of the press. It was kind of a relief to watch it.

Doesn't she realize that she's being broadcast daily, all of her temper fits and lies. So obvious to us, and they are still blind as a bat (SHS and her dad)...both nuts of the worst kind...

These days, people will do what it takes to get the spotlight. Wolff may be smarter than everyone!
I'd bet her calendar fills up rather fast for the upcoming months.

Please give me an example for when going high when they go low has achieved anything in the last quarter century.

But if you want an example, I would refer you to Martin Luther King Jr...who preached non-violent resistance. He spoke against using violence, because he believed that it would hurt the cause for civil rights. So he advocated civil disobedience, but insisted that the temptation to do violent things would be counter-productive.

I think MLK was smart, too.

So, in answer to your question, the civil rights movement made quite a lot of progress as a result of MLK Jr and his words

Do you want more? I didn't think so.....

Was what I was responding to. Obviously

or progress as violence in the street.

low ground = Trump

Which side are you on?

about giving an example of high ground being more effective than low ground?

Please give me an example of where a female comedian did as much harm to civil rights as you say she is doing, and worthy of comparison to violence in the street.

And please tell me how you think it's somehow logical compare those who don't approve of her comedy routine up with MLK.

Have a nice day. You want to misrepresent what I have to say, go ahead. I see no point in responding to someone who misrepresents what I have to say.

bye

I don't blame you.

When you don't know the topic on which you are lecturing people, their responses can be very tiring, can't they.

When you lecture me about not knowing the topic......

I am sure you can find someone else who would benefit from your superior knowledge. Go find. Bye

I guess that means that something I posted hit a nerve, and you needed to come back to remind me again about how you are not going to come back to lecture everyone.

I think what is uncivil is lecturing everyone on how "offensive" she is - to the point of implying that you yourself are representative of MLK's opinion of such things, despite the fact that your favorite male comedians, one of whom is your "hero" have said things equally "crude," if not more so, and you become outraged when someone points that out.

See you soon...

You had to go back 50 years for your example.

find someone else to talk to

You know, every time you reply, you are continuing the discussion. Which really shows that you are trying to tell me to shut up, without using those words.

You can't stand the contradictions and self-comparisons with MLK being called out, can you?

But you keep on posting them.

May I suggest using the ignore feature, if my observations upset you that much?

Talk to you soon.

The world has changed since the late 60s. We have a president who never served in govt in any way. A president who is twice-divorced, cheated on his current wife, talks about grabbing pussy, mocked a disabled person on camera, defrauded people with his "university," and is profiting directly from the govt with his hotels.
Any one of these things would have been inconceivable in the 1960s, would have destroyed the career of any politician in the 1960s. These times are very, very, very different from the 1960s.

(Btw, I can think of an example that refutes your premise that taking the high road is effective: John Kerry. He stayed silent after having his valor in Vietnam questioned and mocked. No one admired him for taking the high road. Indeed, they thought it made him look weak.)

I gave the civil rights movement/MLK. You can nit pick if you want to, whether it was 25 years ago or whenever....but the fact remains taking the low road is often counter-productive....as MLK jr so aptly pointed out to us. These words are still true today unless you want to say MLK Jr is so yesterday....I don't think you want to say that, do you?

She takes the low road over and over in her press conferences. That's the problem. And I seriously doubt that Trump would want a press secretary who takes the high road. It's a problem with this administration that is only indirectly linked to the political point of view.

Watch the videos of the Republican debates during the primary campaign. Trump insulted everyone. He isn't a comedian, but he insults everyone he can.

Trump's behavior toward the leaders of the countries that are our allies when he went to the NATO meeting and when he has attended other international meetings was just despicable. Yet his worshipers overlook his terrible conduct.

The roasting was well deserved and did not go beyond what the Trump administration dishes out to others on a regular basis.

Go back and watch the videos. Trump has lowered the tone of discourse in the entire United States.

And I have previously said I don't like Huckabee Sanders at all. For similar reasons as you have described.

from a female comedian making a joke to confront conservatives with their own hippocrisy, to violence in the street.


Also known as moving the goalpost...

In a very laughable effort to try to make you look like you alone are on the side of MLK here, and anyone who disagrees with you on Michelle Wolf is also disagreeing with MLK on street violence.

The other side of the civil rights movement, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. And, the Black Panthers.

The alternative to peaceful protests was obvious. That and the race riots of the late 60s saw the results of inaction on civil rights. You take MLK out of context.

Nixon unleashed Spiro Agnes with his "nattering nabobs of negatisim", etc. And Trump admires Nixon very much. Going high has gotten a lot of people marching in the streets for common sense regulation on guns but we still had a Waffle House. We need more than a photo l.p..

That's more than a quarter century ago.

But, since you are evading the question like an antelope evading a cheetah, this shipped has sailed as well.

Now people are pooh poohing whether it was 25 years ago or what.

The point is historically sometimes taking the high road accomplishes more than taking the low road. I was asked for just one example. I could give a rat's arse whether it was more than 25 years ago!

OK....I will find another example....from a time period of less than 25 years ago. I will present Barack Obama, who has made lots of accomplishments in his life.

Here are some words from Michelle Obama from a graduation speech:

First Lady Michelle Obama gave a rare and impassioned defense of her husband's legacy Saturday, saying he's risen above personal attacks and taken the high road even as opponents have questioned his patriotism, his honesty, his citizenship and his faith.

"As I’ve walked this journey with Barack, I’ve gotten a pretty good look at what it means to rise above the fray, what it means to set your eyes on the horizon, to devote your life to making things better for those who will come after you," she told the graduating class of Jackson State University, a historically black college in Mississippi.

"I have seen how, no matter what kind of ugliness is going on at any particular moment, Barack always stays the course," she said.

The commencement address had echoes of a similar speech Mrs. Obama gave last year, at Tuskegee University in Alabama, when she confessed that criticism of her — often drenched in racial stereotypes — often caused her sleepless nights.

This year, her focus appeared to me more on President Obama's legacy. She recited a litany of accomplishments during the Obama presidency on the economy, health care, foreign policy, gay rights and climate change.

"Yet, too often, instead of acknowledging or celebrating this change, we have a tendency to focus on conflict and controversy. We pay endless attention to folks who are blocking action, blocking judges, blocking immigration, blocking a raise in the minimum wage — just blocking," she said. "We are consumed with the anger and vitriol that are bubbling up, with folks shouting at each other, using hateful and divisive language."

Michelle Obama urges JSU grads to vote, fight discrimination

The president has often been at the receiving end of that language, she said. "Charges that he doesn’t love our country. The time he was called a liar in front of a Joint Session of Congress. The nonstop questions about his birth certificate and his belief in God," she said.

Mrs. Obama's defense of her husband was in the context of a commencement address in which she told the 800 graduates that they, too, will face discrimination — in voting rights, criminal justice, education and housing — and have to make a choice of how to deal with it.

"Are you going to get angry or lash out?" she asked. "Or are you going to take a deep breath, straighten your shoulders, lift up your head, and do what Barack Obama has always done — as he says, 'When they go low, I go high"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/theoval/2016/04/24/first-lady-michelle-obama-lauds-husband-taking-high-road/83453920/

I can't speak for you....but I will unequivocably say I think Barack Obama accomplished a LOT and I agree with his own analysis that going high is more effective than going low.

Now if you want to use this forum to criticize Obama,, have at it. And, yes, this includes the time period of 25 years......

eyes roll.....

. . .where going high when they go low helped. You went to 1968 as if you were playing "gotcha".

Your point on Obama is fair enough, and despite your grotesque insult in your second to last line, i'll grant some points on that.

However, it is fair debate to wonder how much more could have been done if he had been willing to get into the ring for some full contact politics.

I would opine that he was TOO nice to the other side and that emboldened them to the point that we have what we now have, with PINO in the Oval Office.

With that, i'm out, because you keep changing the target and you resorted to insults.

She was not asked to speak at the correspondent's dinner.

The WHCD is the right venue for serving back to the administration the kind of conduct it has served to the American people and the American press in particular.

Michelle Wolf's presentation was totally appropriate, and anyone who has watched Trump and now his administration since Trump announced his candidacy should recognize that fact.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders' press conferences are rife with hostility and ugliness. And she needs to change her ways.

Humor instructs us. Please read some Moliere. He put the powerful in French society of his time in their places. His humor was a factor that over a very long period of time eventually led to the French revolution -- just a small factor, but a freeing factor.

We did not need to subject ourselves as a nation to the crude, ugly behavior of Donald Trump and his entourage. Michelle Wolf merely met that crude, ugly behavior on its own level. Good for her. The powerful who look down on the poor and ordinary need to be ridiculed for their haughty disrespect for others.

And any American leader who disrespects the freedom of the press as Trump does is going to be ridiculed. Deservedly.

Obama and MLK are only two examples

Maybe this?

when he and she laughed at Larry Wilmore using the N word to address Obama, and shocked people at the 2016 Press corps dinner, then he got up and hugged Wilmore?

And implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you couldn't agree with MLK, or "think he was smart."

Yeah, we caught that, and yes, it's ridiculous.

As someone I love very much likes to say, "Get down offa that cross. Somebody could use the wood."

that having Malcolm X in the background giving the "Ballot or the Bullet" speech helped a lot, too.

A war's a war. Fight like it.

He argued against the instinct to fight against injustice with violence. Because he thought that violence would set back the cause for civil rights.

He was right. He took the moral high ground and the other side damaged its own cause by using vioence against the resistance.

Americans resist because they always resist oppression, no matter how important or stupid the source.

the low ground.

If Wolf did anything to help topple Trump or Sanders from power, that would be one thing. But she didn't do anything. All we are talking about is....er.....Wolf.

And there are countless issues that Wolf could have skewered in her roast. Late night comics do it every night.

She made it all about herself, knowing full well that is she said stuff shocking, she would be the talk of the town.

I wish we were talking about how bad Trump is as a result of her speech....but that is secondary, very secondary.....

It was serious caricature, satire, social commentary. In the long judgment of history and perspective, it will be judged for the piece of work it was. The in-yer-face schtick is very difficult to master, and to pull off in a high stakes environment in a friendly yet abrasive way and raspy screech is a very high achievement. She was mimicking the whole administration - approaches, policies, demeanor, class - and really took a bite out of it. This was a grand slam in a championship game.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10557848

Friendly, huh?

And isn't that what would be ideal to throw back at those who have normalized DT?

Such as when he called DT "a cock holster for Putin."

Or are you more upset that it's a woman saying these things?

the cock holster thing, however, was a mistake on his part. It got a lot of criticism as being insensitive to gays. I believe he said he would not use those words again, if I am not mistaken.

But he's your hero, and you scold a female comedian for "going low."

If you bothered to read the article, you would see that it points out that she threw the norms in the face of those in the press who made DT "normal."

However, you continue to denigrate a woman who speaks truth to power in a satirical way as "going low" and comparing it to violence in the street, and setting back women's rights.

What is the difference between the two comedians?

I think I made the point...when you were insinuating that I didn't like Colbert....that indeed I do like him. I also made the point that I thought the quote you referenced was a mistake on his part. I am not into hero worhip. People make mistakes. By and large, Colbert does a great job and is an excellent comic. He also does a much more skillful job of roasting Trump than what I saw in the Saturday Night Whine Fest.

Nobody is denigrating women. Has it come to the point when if someone doesn't like what Wolf said Saturday night, and agreed with LOTS of people including many journalists, that she crossed the line.....that this means it is sexism? OMG that is so lame!

Did you say that Colbert was harming our cause by going low?

No.

Did you compare "Putin's cockholster" with violence in the streets?

No.

You are denigrating Wolf for doing what Colbert did in ways you don't denigrate Colbert.

Do the math.

Not foreign or domestic policy, this wasn’t a press conference or a newcast. Michelle told jokes...hard hitting jokes. Sometimes jokes are insensitive and irreverent and that’s why we laugh. SHS lying her ass off every single day is WAY more offensive than anything Michelle Wolf had going on at the WHCD...an event, that is in fact, a roast. It’s supposed to be baudy and wild. Comedians are very often our truth tellers. If the jokes are tough it’s a likely reflection of our reality.

than male comedians doing similar, and in front of the same event?

false equivalency on steroids

But you decry Wolfe as setting back "the pro-choice movement?"

What is the difference between the two who "went low?"

You seem to be avoiding the different standards there.

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2018, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is exactly what Trump wants you to do. Did Wolf call Sanders chunky, for instance? No, she called her a liar and that upsets you. A roast by definition bangs people. It is not intended to be ha ha funny. Wolf banged a lot of people, including Sanders.

Nice.....

I gave an example of what you are treating it like she said. The problem is yours and Trumps.

I was asked to provide an historical example.

I did.

Next?

Comparing a female comedian confronting conservatives with their own ridiculousness with violence in the streets.

Is it because she's a woman?

I note you haven't been around long, but it's not a good thing to do here.

Rich.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge satire....

You would also be upset at Colbert for doing something similar in the Colbert Report.

Too bad Wolf wasn't anything like Colbert's skill

I am not a right winger. And I know what satire is.

I also know that we are talking about ....not trump....but Wolf. Which is exactly what she had in mind.

Is OK, but a female comedian confronting conservatives on their own ridiculousness is offensive?