Please then, give me the proper feminine form of the word "guys" then, since "guys" refers to a group of men or a group of people of mixed sex (basic grammar rules usually dictate that when referring to a group of masculine and feminine nouns, the masculine word is acceptable). So since I can't use guys to describe a group of women, and the proper word "Girls" (as gals is outdated, and no longer used), what exactly am I supposed to say? And no, women is not an appropriate word either. Women is NOT the feminine counterpart of the word "guys." Jeez- talk about touchy. I just can't keep up with the PC rules and regulations. They change far too often.
Originally posted by messenoir So please, even if you disagree with the message, give some fucking credit to who is giving the message.
If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, it's probably shit. The groups you mentioned have no credibility outside of the liberal political sphere. While there are conservatives who oppose the war for philosophical reasons, they sure as hell aint liing up behind these left-wing wacko train...
Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
Originally posted by Pool-BoyPlease then, give me the proper feminine form of the word "guys" then, since "guys" refers to a group of men or a group of people of mixed sex (basic grammar rules usually dictate that when referring to a group of masculine and feminine nouns, the masculine word is acceptable).
From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (emphasis added):
Main Entry: guy Function: noun Etymology: Guy Fawkes Date: 1806 1 often capitalized : a grotesque effigy of Guy Fawkes traditionally displayed and burned in England on Guy Fawkes Day 2 chiefly British : a person of grotesque appearance 3 a : MAN, FELLOW b : PERSON -- used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex {saw her and the rest of the guys}
So, technically, "guys" could mean a group of men or a group of women. In the real world, though, we're more likely to call each other "girls", regardless of age.
Steph
I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop - "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
I don't want to get dragged into a semantics discussion (he said, as he got dragged into a semantics discussion)...
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I can't think of a group of 20- to 50-somethings as "girls." My mom is not a "girl."
I would have preferred "ladies" or "women," I guess. Please tell me you can at least see how others could find a difference between the terms.
The sad thing is that wasn't even my main point. "Girls" on its own probably wouldn't have gotten a response from me, but my REAL issue was with your "I bet none of them even knows where Iraq is" crack which, when added to the use of "girls" not to mention "no clue," totals out to what I see as pretty much a sexist remark ("girls are dumb") even if you don't/won't/can't see it as such. In addition, it gave the (still as yet unrefuted) impression that you didn't bother reading the story or getting into the facts because all you really wanted to do was make a smartass remark. And, golly, that annoys me, so I'll waste my precious time dragging both of us into this inane semantical exercise.
Originally posted by StephanieSo, technically, "guys" could mean a group of men or a group of women. In the real world, though, we're more likely to call each other "girls", regardless of age.
Steph
"Guys" could also mean a group of French-Canadian hockey players.
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
Originally posted by CRZI'm sorry, maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I can't think of a group of 20- to 50-somethings as "girls." My mom is not a "girl."
You're as old as you feel.
Steph
I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop - "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
The comment "not a signle one of these girls even knows were Iraq is" was not intended to be sexist. My reason for thinking that was NOT because they happened to be female. If anything, it was a slam at protesters in general. I think the protest culture in this country has seen a dramatic shift over the decades. People who marched in women's rights events and civil rights protests back in the day seemed to have a very clear idea what they were protesting about. Today, I find that most people who are out protesting something really have no clue what is going on. Sure, their heart may be in the right place, "no war" is indeed a noble idea, but when there is no real contest in the protest, there is less meaning. Especially considering the fact that these very liberal people were nowhere to be seen when Clinton was rattling his sabre about Iraq. They are not protesting the war, they are protesting Bush, and only because of his political party.
So it was not a slam on women. It was a slam on modern-day protesters. This group happened to be all female.
I will say that I would never dare call a group of women my Mom's age "girls." I would call them ladies. But this was a dominantly younger group.
And Stephanie, I do appreciate the definition. I admit that I was mistaken about the definition of "guys." In my own defense, my adversity to using the term guys in regards to a group of women stems from an ex-girlfriend, who turned out to be quite the man-hating feminazi (not a feminist- she truly believed that women were superior to men), who would go absolutly ballistic when I would use "guys" to refer to a group of women. Perhaps I assumed that it was a more universally offensive term...
Originally posted by Pool-Boy Especially considering the fact that these very liberal people were nowhere to be seen when Clinton was rattling his sabre about Iraq. They are not protesting the war, they are protesting Bush, and only because of his political party.
Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.
Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.
Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.
Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.
Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.
You lost me here, Im not debating were we right or wrong in doing any military action. My point is Clinton didnt have the war protesters hounding him as hard because he hadnt deployed almost a quarter million soldiers to the Gulf in preparation for war. Bush 43 has, so he gets the headache.
Ah, but the protests started LONG before it was even announced that so many troops would be going there. Hell, the protests started as soon as Bush mentioned "Iraq" and "war" in the same sentance. Explain that?
Originally posted by Pool-BoyAh, but the protests started LONG before it was even announced that so many troops would be going there. Hell, the protests started as soon as Bush mentioned "Iraq" and "war" in the same sentance. Explain that?
Part of the Job. Bush is a big boy, Im sure naked protesters arent keeping him up at night....
I just want to point out that there were people protesting the economic sanctions against Iraq. And the bombing of the Sudan in an effort to get bin Laden. No matter what you do, as a politician or celebrity (any media figure really), if a liberal feels you are out of line, they'll protest. It's just in their roots. Of course, we protest so much these days, that it just becomes a blur, and there's no focus. So I do agree with you there. Non-violent protests have ceased to be effective. We'll just have to wait and see what develops once people start to realize this.
-Jag
Year after year, the United States has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use they could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0Well Clinton didnt deploy 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. Id say his sabre wasnt rattling quite as hard. And even when Clinton did use any kind of military force, against the Iraqis, Al-Quaida, or in Kosovo the anti war folks were quite upset and let people know it. Any President going to war would face the wrath of the anti-war folks. Gore would have the same problem.
Clinton's "sabre-rattling" was the epitomy of the "hit a camel in the butt" method. Kosovo was a ridiculous situation because there was no overwhelming national interest there other than for the sake of having troops there. It's not like Iraq where there are(as a matter of fact) national security interests involved.
You lost me here, Im not debating were we right or wrong in doing any military action. My point is Clinton didnt have the war protesters hounding him as hard because he hadnt deployed almost a quarter million soldiers to the Gulf in preparation for war. Bush 43 has, so he gets the headache.
And what does "hit a camel in the butt" mean?
The hit a camel in the butt reference is in light of Clinton shooting million dollar cruise missles into 10 dollar tents and basically doing nothing of worth except shooting missiles as a feel good measure.
You don't get it boy, this isn't a mudhole... it's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon. Something tells me to stop with the leg. I don't listen to it. But where in the world is there in the world A man so extroardinaire?
Unless, of course, they're naked non-violent protests.
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Originally posted by MoeGatesNon-violent protests have ceased to be effective.
Unless, of course, they're naked non-violent protests.
Nope....still not effective.
Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003
Ah, but protests are still effective. Support for the war is much, much, much down from where it was. Naked protests are not effective however. It's all in the approach and message.